What line is it anyway? An appeal for policy coordination to support integrated floodplain management in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to a changing climate and increasing flood damage costs, safeguarding properties from flooding has become a government priority in Ontario and throughout the world. On one side, the floodplain limit is critical to establish as a regulated area that will restrict development, and therefore, limit the potential flood damage and cost to taxpayers. On the other side, an overestimated floodplain can unnecessarily sterilize land development potential, trigger lawsuits, and increase the cost of infrastructure. The research questions are: Why is there a lack of horizontal policy coordination at the provincial level in response to flood risk and climate change? Which policy tools can be leveraged to recognize investments in flood infrastructure and more accurately define floodplain limits? In response, this paper will review the challenges in Ontario with respect to the current floodplain management governance structure, summarize policy coordination theory to assess the challenges of establishing integrated floodplain policy, and lastly, recommend tools from policy integration and implementation theory to meet overarching provincial goals. This paper will argue that policy coordination is required to balance flood risk against uncertainty factors and that it would be beneficial for Ontario to establish an overarching multidisciplinary agency to oversee integrated floodplain management policy. This may include recognizing the benefits of structural flood controls, such as stormwater management facilities, as well as establishing a cost-risk-benefit framework to balance levels of service in response to climate change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".