MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388126864 · doi:10.3390/w15213825

Using Logistic Regression to Identify the Key Hydrologic Controls of Ice-Jam Flooding near the Peace–Athabasca Delta: Assessment of Uncertainty and Linkage with Physical Process Understanding

2023· article· en· W4388126864 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Spyros Beltaos

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsLogistic regressionFlooding (psychology)Environmental sciencePrecipitationFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)StatisticsGeographyClimatologyPhysical geographyMathematicsGeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Peace–Athabasca Delta (PAD) in northern Alberta is one of the world’s largest inland freshwater deltas and is home to many species of fish, mammals, and birds. Over the past five decades, the PAD has experienced prolonged dry periods in between rare floods, accompanied by a reduction in the area comprised of lakes and ponds that provide a habitat for aquatic life. In the Peace sector of the PAD, this likely resulted from a reduced frequency of spring flooding caused by major ice jams that form in the lower Peace River. There is debate in the literature regarding the factors that promote or inhibit the formation of such ice jams, deriving from physical process studies, paleolimnological studies, and—recently—statistical analysis founded in logistic regression. Logistic regression attempts to quantify ice-jam flood (IJF) probability, given the values of assumed explanatory variables, involve considerable uncertainty. Herein, different sources of uncertainty are examined and their effects on statistical inferences are evaluated. It is shown that epistemic uncertainty can be addressed by selecting direct explanatory variables, such as breakup flow and ice cover thickness, rather than through more convenient, albeit weak, proxies that rely on winter precipitation and degree-days of frost. Structural uncertainty, which derives from the unknown mathematical relationship between IJF probability and the selected explanatory variables, leads to different probability predictions for different assumed relationships but does not modify assessments of statistical significance. The uncertainty associated with the relatively small sample size (number of years of record) may be complicated by known physical constraints on IJF occurrence. Overall, logistic regression corroborates physical understanding that points to breakup flow and freezeup level as primary controls of IJF occurrence. Additional influences, related to the thermal decay of the ice cover and the flow gradient during the advance of the breakup front towards the PAD, are difficult to quantify at present. Progress requires increased monitoring of processes and an enhanced numerical modelling capability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207