MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407717948 · doi:10.1111/jfr3.70012

Economic Exposure of Canadian Residential Properties to Flooding

2025· article· en· W4407717948 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabriel Morin, Mathieu Boudreault, Jason Thistlethwaite, Michaël Bourdeau-Brien, Jacob Chenette, Daniel Henstra, Jonathan Raikes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Flood Risk Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of WaterlooUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsFlooding (psychology)Environmental scienceGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Flood risk management (FRM) involves planning proactively for flooding in high‐risk areas to reduce its impacts on people and property. A key challenge for governments pursuing FRM is to pinpoint assets that are highly economically exposed and vulnerable to flood hazards in order to prioritize them in policy and planning. This paper presents a novel flood risk assessment, making use of a dataset that identifies the location, dwelling type, property characteristics, and potential economic losses of Canadian residential properties. The findings reveal that the average annual costs are $1.4B, but most of the risks are concentrated in high‐risk areas. Data gaps are uncovered that justify replication through local validation studies. The results provide a novel evidence base for specific reforms in Canada's approach to FRM, with a focus on insurance that improves both implementation and effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Flood Risk ManagementSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207