The progression of flood risk in southern Alberta since the 2013 flood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract After a century of semi‐restricted floodplain development, Southern Alberta, Canada, was struck by the devastating 2013 Flood. Aging infrastructure and limited property‐level floodproofing likely contributed to the $4–6 billion (CAD) losses. Following this catastrophe, Alberta has seen a revival in flood management, largely focused on structural protections. However, concurrent with the recent structural work was a 100,000+ increase in Calgary's population in the 5 years following the flood, leading to further densification of high‐hazard areas. This study implements the novel Stochastic Object‐based Flood damage Dynamic Assessment (SOFDA) model framework to quantify the progression of the direct‐damage flood risk in a mature urban neighborhood after the 2013 Flood. Five years of remote‐sensing data, property assessment records, and inundation simulations following the flood are used to construct the model. Results show that in these 5 years, vulnerability trends (like densification) have increased flood risk by 4%; however, recent structural mitigation projects have reduced overall flood risk by 47% for this case study. These results demonstrate that the flood management revival in Southern Alberta has largely been successful at reducing flood risk; however, the gains are under threat from continued development and densification absent additional floodproofing regulations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".