A comprehensive review of AI-based methods used for forecasting ice jam floods occurrence, severity, timing, and location
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
River ice breakup can affect most rivers in cold climate during winter, posing a serious threat of Ice-Jam Floods (IJFs) to riverine communities. IJFs are challenging to predict due to their chaotic nature that arises from the complex interaction between hydroclimatic factors and river morphology. In addition, climate change has significantly impacted river ice patterns and the severity of IJFs in recent decades. However, recent advancements in computing power have led to the development of several Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches to forecast IJF. Still, there is a lack of a systematic review that can adequately compare the different AI approaches together with the different hydrometeorological parameters used to forecast IJF. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to review the various existing AI-based IJFs prediction models, their input parameters, and their potential strengths and limitations. The review showed that AI-based IJF prediction models can be grouped into four categories based on their objectives to forecast IJF occurrence, severity, timing, and location. The study also revealed that station-based data remained the primary source of information for predicting IJFs, but there has been a growing trend in recent years toward remote sensing, reanalysis products, and national databases, indicating their increasing prominence. Overall, air temperature, precipitation, and hydrometric parameters (discharge and water level) were the most frequently utilized input parameters. The review also categorized AI-based IJF forecasting models into four types: machine learning, hybrid, ensemble, and framework models. Although the framework approach has gained recent popularity in recent years, but still the machine learning and ensemble models were the most frequently used. While directly comparing the capabilities and limitations of different modeling approaches without considering the specific context of the sites in which they were applied can be misleading, several studies have demonstrated the potential of ensemble and hybrid approaches to improve model accuracy compared to single machine learning models. However, more studies are needed to confirm these conclusions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it