Science of forests and floods: The quantum leap forward needed, literally and metaphorically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A century of research has generated considerable disagreement on the effect of forests on floods. Here we call for a causal inference framework to advance the science and management of the effect of any forest or its removal on flood severity and frequency. The causes of floods are multiple and chancy and, hence, can only be investigated via a probabilistic approach. We use the stochastic hydrology literature to infer a blueprint framework which could guide future research on the understanding and prediction of the effects of forests on floods in environments where rain is the dominant form of precipitation. Drawing parallels from other disciplines, we show that the introduction of probability in forest hydrology could stimulate a gestalt switch in the science of forests and floods. In light of increasing flood risk caused by climate change, this probabilistic framework can help policymakers develop robust forest and water management plans based on a defensible and clear understanding of floods.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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".