Joint Flood Risks in the Grand River Watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the World Meteorological Organization, since 2000, there has been an increase in global flood-related disasters by 134 percent compared to the previous decades. Efficient flood risk management strategies necessitate a holistic approach to evaluating flood vulnerabilities and risks. Catastrophic losses can occur when the peak flow values in the rivers in a basin coincide. Therefore, estimating the joint flood risks in a region is vital, especially when frequent occurrences of extreme events are experienced. This study focuses on estimating the joint flood risks due to river flow extremes in the Grand River watershed in Canada. For this purpose, the study uses copula analysis to investigate the joint occurrence of extreme river flow events in the Speed and Grand Rivers in the Grand River Watershed in Ontario, Canada. By estimating the joint return period for extreme flows in both rivers, we demonstrate the interdependence of the two river flows and how this interdependence influences the behavior of river flow extreme patterns. Our findings suggest that the interdependence between the two river flows leads to changes in the river flow extreme pattern. Determining the interdependence of floods at multiple locations using state-of-the-art tools will benefit various stakeholders, such as the insurance industry, the disaster management sector, and most importantly, the public.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".