MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6967799378 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14535465

Freeze-up ice-jam flood hazard assessment and mapping

2024· other· en· W6967799378 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFloodplain100-year floodFlooding (psychology)Hydrology (agriculture)Flood stageHazardFlood risk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although ice-jam flooding in northern rivers is generally more severe during ice-cover breakup in spring, ice jams during river freeze-up and mid-winter breakup can also impose high flood hazard in some rivers, particularly those in regions with a maritime climate (e.g. Atlantic Canada). In this paper, we numerically simulate ice-jam flood hazard and carried out the flood mapping of a high ice-jam flood risk community along the Exploits River in Newfoundland where the most severe floods occur from ice jams formed during river freezing. A stochastic modelling approach was used to simulate the processes of ice-jam formation and flooding along the river during freeze-up. This approach uses a deterministic river ice hydraulics model that is run repeatedly within a Monte-Carlo framework. Input values for the parameters and boundary conditions were chosen randomly from frequency distributions. An ensemble of backwater levels was produced from which profiles of exceedance probabilities were calculated. The water level elevations are extrapolated into the floodplain to determine flood depths. This approach is a new method to estimate ice-jam flood hazard and risk stemming from river freezing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→