Considering Uncertainty of Historical Ice Jam Flood Records in a Bayesian Frequency Analysis for the Peace‐Athabasca Delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Peace‐Athabasca Delta in Alberta, Canada has numerous perched basins that are primarily recharged after large ice jams cause floods (an ecological benefit). Previous studies have estimated that such large floods are likely to decrease in frequency under various climate projections. However, there is a sizable uncertainty range in these predicted flood probabilities, in part due to the short 60‐year systematic record that contained few large ice jam floods. An additional 50 years of historical data are available from various sources, with expert‐interpreted flood categories; however, these categorizations are uncertain in magnitude and occurrence. We developed a Bayesian framework that considers magnitude and occurrence uncertainties within a logistic regression model that predicts the annual probability of a large flood. The Bayesian regression estimates the joint distribution of parameters describing the effects of climatic factors and parameters that describe the probability that historical flood magnitudes were recorded as large (or not) when a truly large (or not) flood occurred. We compare four models for hindcasting and projecting large ice jam flood probabilities in future climates. The models consider: (a) historical data uncertainty, (b) no historical data uncertainty, (c) only the systematic record, and (d) the systematic record with a different model. Neglecting historical data uncertainty provides inaccurate estimates, while using only the systematic record provides wider prediction intervals than considering the full record with uncertain historical data. Thus, we demonstrate that including uncertain historical information can effectively extend the record length and make flood frequency analyses more accurate and precise.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".