MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412069459 · doi:10.1038/s44304-025-00109-z

Anthropogenic and climatic drivers of the 2022 mega-flood in Pakistan

2025· article· en· W4412069459 on OpenAlexaff
Arfan Arshad, Ali Mirchi, Azeem Ali Shah, Amir AghaKouchak

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj natural hazards. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
FundersOffice of International Science and EngineeringNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFlood mythMega-MegacityGeographyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEcologyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The convergence of climatic and anthropogenic factors that triggered the August 2022 mega-flood in Southern Pakistan caused 1486 fatalities and approximately $30 billion in economic damages. After a multi-year drought, the pre-monsoon rainfall was 111% higher than the long-term average of 1951–2021, increasing soil moisture by 30% in the Indus Basin floodplains. Monsoon rains were 547% above average, with record-breaking cumulative weekly rainfall in July (200 mm) on already saturated soils. Upstream drainage catchments (e.g., Chenab, Jhelum, and Ravi) received 33% and 41% more rain in pre-monsoon and monsoon periods, respectively. August 2022’s streamflow at Sukur Barrage, just upstream of the floodplains, was 170% larger than the historical average, due to the compounding effects of rain-on-snow and warmer temperatures accelerating snowmelt. The magnitude of multi-day consecutive rainfall events is projected to increase in Southern Pakistan by 2099 in a high-emission scenario (SSP5-8.5), making the catastrophic 2022 flood a forewarning of elevated future flood risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj natural hazards.Same topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207