Flood occurrence and impact models for socioeconomic applications over Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale socioeconomic studies of the impacts of floods are difficult and costly for countries such as Canada and the United States due to the large number of rivers and size of watersheds. Such studies are however very important for analyzing spatial patterns and temporal trends to inform large-scale flood risk management decisions and policies. In this paper, we present different flood occurrence and impact models based upon statistical and machine learning methods of over 31 000 watersheds spread across Canada and the US. The models can be quickly calibrated and thereby easily run predictions over thousands of scenarios in a matter of minutes. As applications of the models, we present the geographical distribution of the modelled average annual number of people displaced due to flooding in Canada and the US, as well as various scenario analyses. We find for example that an increase of 10 % in average precipitation yields an increase in the displaced population of 18 % in Canada and 14 % in the US. The model can therefore be used by a broad range of end users ranging from climate scientists to economists who seek to translate climate and socioeconomic scenarios into flood probabilities and impacts measured in terms of the displaced population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".