Climate-Resilience of Dams: Canadian Perspectives and Design Flood Estimation Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has a long history of recurrent flooding, which has resulted in significant damage and large government disaster assistance disbursements. The most expensive flood in Canada was the 2013 Alberta flood, which resulted in total estimated losses of over five billion dollars, according to the Canadian disaster database. There is an increasing body of literature, suggesting that future climate change will alter precipitation and streamflow characteristics, snowpack, and snowmelt timing and magnitude. Extreme inflows that exceed dam discharge and storage capacity can lead to dam breach, posing significant risks to lives and properties on the downstream. Dams constructed decades ago are specifically vulnerable to unprecedented flood events. Therefore, in addition to other actions, an important step for enhancing and assessing climate-resilience of dams is to develop climate change informed approaches for estimating design floods and associated guidelines. For the development of design flood estimation guidelines, a variety of literature was explored, including journal articles, national and international guidelines, technical reports, and documents pertaining to regional climate change and catastrophic events. In addition, outcomes from a number of targeted dam vulnerability assessment case studies, involving development of physics-informed non-stationary flood frequency relationships and flood envelop curves, were also considered. Through a systematic review of traditional design practices, careful examination of regional climate change vulnerabilities, and outcomes of targeted dam vulnerability assessment case studies, it was realized that a variety of approaches will be required to ensure future climate-resilience of dams of all sizes, ranging from low-risk small dams to high-risk large dams. Therefore, traditional design flood estimation methodologies need to be innovated, following new design philosophies, advances in climate change science, and improved understandings of regional flood generating mechanisms. This presentation will discuss the steps taken to develop design flood estimation guidelines and the outcomes of various research activities, including the development of physics-informed non-stationary flood frequency analyses and creation of regional flood envelop curves to support design of critical water infrastructure.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".