GIS derived synthetic rating curves and HAND model to support on-the-fly flood mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A timely and cost-effective method of creating inundation maps could assist first responders in allocating resources and personnel in the event of a flood or in preparation of a future disaster. The Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) model could be implemented into an on-the-fly flood mapping application for a Canada-wide service. The HAND model requires water level (m) data inputs while many sources of hydrological data in Canada only provide discharge (m3/sec) data. Synthetic rating curves (SRCs), created using river geometry/characteristics and the Manning’s formula, could be utilized to provide an approximate water level given a discharge input. A challenge with creating SRCs includes representing how multiple different land covers will slow impact flow due to texture and bulky features (i.e., smooth asphalt versus rocky river channel); this relates to the roughness coefficient (n). In our study, two methods of representing multiple n values were experimented with (a weighted method and a minimum-median method) and were compared to using a fixed n method. A custom ArcGIS tool, Canadian Estimator of Ratings Curves using HAND and Discharge (CERC-HAND-D), was developed to create SRCs using all three methods. Control data were sourced from gauge stations across Canada in the form of rating curves. Results indicate that in areas with medium to medium–high river gradients (S > 0.002 m/m) or with river reaches under 5 km, the CERC-HAND-D tool creates more accurate SRCs (NRMSE = 3.7–8.8%, Percent Bias = −7.8%—9.4%), with the minimum-median method being the preferred n method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".