MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415300280 · doi:10.1002/hyp.70296

Mapping the Past and Informing the Future: A Framework for Accessing and Communicating Historic Canadian Flood Impact Data

2025· article· en· W4415300280 on OpenAlexafffundabout
S. O. Neumann, Tricia Stadnyk

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsFlood mythNatural disasterGeographic information systemVulnerability (computing)Bridging (networking)Event (particle physics)Vulnerability assessmentEmergency managementNatural hazard

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Flooding is one of Canada's most frequent and costly natural disasters, with major negative impacts on people, economies, and ecosystems. Yet, historic Canadian flood impact data remain fragmented, inconsistent, and difficult for both the public and policymakers to access. This research develops a framework for collecting, standardizing, and visualizing historic flood impact data to improve natural disaster communication and public safety. Using the Canadian Disaster Database as a foundation, flood events from 2010 to 2024 were analyzed and assigned standardized impact scores reflecting social, environmental, and economic costs. These data were stored in a dynamic PostgreSQL database that automates calculations and supports future updates. An interactive Geographic Information System (GIS) platform was created to visualize this information, allowing users to explore flood histories across Canada, view event details, and track changing regional vulnerability through time. Unlike traditional flood maps that emphasize water extent or depth, this tool focuses on accessibility and interpretation, bridging scientific information with public awareness and policy development. By making complex flood data transparent and interactive, this framework advances science communication, strengthens evidence‐based decision‐making, and supports a more resilient Canada in the face of increasing climate‐related 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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0200.018
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0200.009
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207