MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417502311 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-06349-y

A comprehensive dataset of riverine levee overtopping events for advancing risk assessment

2025· article· en· W4417502311 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Flynn, Farshid Vahedifard, David M. Schaaf

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsLeveeFlood mythRisk assessmentConsistency (knowledge bases)Hydrology (agriculture)Foundation (evidence)Flood control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthen levees are the primary flood protection infrastructure worldwide, with overtopping recognized as the most prevalent mode of their failure. Despite its significance, detailed field data on overtopping events are often limited and fragmented. Here we present the Levee Loading and Incident Dataset - Overtopping (LLID-OT) version 1.0, a curated dataset of 487 overtopping events in U.S. riverine levees compiled over the past 15 years. Data were collected from diverse sources, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports, aerial imagery, hydrologic data repositories, and eyewitness accounts, and include detailed information on hydraulic loading, soil and foundation classifications, construction/maintenance characteristics, geometry, and breach dimensions. Quality control included cross-referencing sources and verifying key parameters to ensure dataset consistency and reliability. Analysis reveals consistent relationships between breach characteristics and variables such as soil type, overtopping depth and duration, and levee geometry. The LLID-OT supports the development and calibration of data-driven and physics-based models, advancing levee risk assessment, design, and flood 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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207