MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414123151 · doi:10.3390/su17188198

Investigating Spatial Extremes of Annual Daily Precipitation Using CMIP6 Multi-Model Ensembles for Sustainable Flood Risk Assessment

2025· article· en· W4414123151 on OpenAlexaff
Alaba Boluwade, Paul Sheridan, Upaka Rathnayake

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationFlood mythReturn periodClimate changeExtreme value theorySpatial ecologyCovariateClimate model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the spatial characteristics of daily maximum precipitation for Prince Edward Island using a max-stable process model. The ssp126, ssp245, and ssp585 climate change scenarios, indicating low/optimistic, intermediate/in-between, and worst/pessimistic emissions scenarios, respectively, were extracted from 11 global climate model ensembles. For the time periods, the reference (historical) period was from 1971 to 2000, according to the World Meteorological Organization recommendations. Other time periods considered were 2011–2040, 2041–2070, and 2071–2100 as immediate, intermediate, and far future periods, respectively. The spatial trends analysis shows a west-to-east gradient throughout the entire study area. Return levels of 25 years were predicted for all the projections using the spatial generalized extreme value model fitted to the historical period, showing that topography should be included as a covariate in the spatial extreme model. Across the 134 grid points used in the study, the predicted return level for the historical period was 94 mm. Compared with the immediate time period, there is an increase of 47%, 53%, and 50% for the low, intermediate, and worst emission scenarios, respectively. For the intermediate period, there is an increase of 43%, 59%, and 56% for the low, intermediate, and worst emission scenarios, respectively. For the far future period, there is an increase of 49%, 48%, and 84% for the low, intermediate, and worst emission scenarios, respectively. There is a systematic increase in return levels based on the different periods. This shows a high chance of increased risks of extreme events of large magnitudes for this area in the immediate future through to the far future. This study will be useful for engineers, city planners, financial officials, and policymakers tasked with infrastructure development, long-term safety protocols, and sustainability and financial risk management.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainability→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→