MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391318980 · doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2024.01.004

Climate change drives flooding risk increases in the Yellow River Basin

2024· article· en· W4391318980 on OpenAlexaff
Hengxing Lan, Zheng Zhao, Langping Li, Junhua Li, Bojie Fu, Naiman Tian, Ruixun Lai, Sha Zhou, Yanbo Zhu, Fanyu Zhang, Jianbing Peng, John J. Clague

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography and sustainability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFlooding (psychology)Flood mythClimate changePeriod (music)Drainage basinEnvironmental scienceStructural basinClimatologyReturn periodGeographyPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)GeologyOceanographyCartographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Yellow River Basin (YRB) has experienced severe floods and continuous riverbed elevation throughout history. Global climate change has been suggested to be driving a worldwide increase in flooding risk. However, owing to insufficient evidence, the quantitative correlation between flooding and climate change remains ill-defined. We present a long time series of maximum flood discharge dating back to 1843 compiled from historical documents and instrument measurements. Variations in yearly maximum flood discharge show distinct periods: a dramatic decreasing period from 1843 to 1950, and an oscillating gentle decreasing from 1950 to 2021, with the latter period also showing increasing more extreme floods. A Mann-Kendall test analysis suggests that the latter period can be further split into two distinct sub-periods: an oscillating gentle decreasing period from 1950 to 2000, and a clear recent increasing period from 2000 to 2021. We further predict that climate change will cause an ongoing remarkable increase in future flooding risk and an ∼44.4 billion US dollars loss of floods in the YRB in 2100.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations56
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeography and sustainabilitySame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207