MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365506136 · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101387

Snow-detonated floods: Assessment of the U.S. midwest march 2019 event

2023· article· en· W4365506136 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolás Velásquez, Felipe Quintero, Sinan Rasiya Koya, Tirthankar Roy, Ricardo Mantilla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology Regional Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMid-America Transportation Center, University of Nebraska-LincolnIowa Department of Transportation
KeywordsSnowFlood mythEnvironmental scienceFlood forecastingWatershedClimatologyHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyPhysical geographyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iowa and the Nishnabotna watershed (Iowa), Midwest U.S. Historically, Iowa and the Midwest have faced floods during the summer season. Some historical floods on record are the 2008 and 2013 floods. In March 2019, a meteorological bomb cyclone set the conditions for an unexpected major snow-related flood. This study (1) presents a comprehensive analysis of the March 2019 flood and asses the early-spring peak flows trends, (2) explores the use of a parsimonious hydrological model with a snow component, and (3) validates the model performance for the last 20 years. The March 2019 event was an extreme flood event that set records on at least 10% of the USGS gauges in Iowa. Moreover, the early spring peak flow analysis showed a significant increasing trend between February and April. In this period, the trend is positive for most gauges, with more than a 30% increase at an annual rate of 4% of the mean yearly peak flow. These findings showed the relevance of snow-detonated floods and their regional understanding. Considering the results' significance, we provided evidence that HLM and a conceptual snow component can represent, forecast, and provide insights regarding snow-detonated events.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrology Regional StudiesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207