Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The north-flowing, low-gradient section of the Red River in Manitoba has lost-60%/o of its valley gradient since 8 ka cal. BP. An existing hydraulic model of the modem Red River flood zone was used to examine the change in flood extent and depth of a discharge equivalent to the 1997 Red River flood (3970 m3/s) for scenarios of gradients at 8, 6, 4 and 2 ka cal. BP as well as 2 ka in the future. The modelling indicates a broad, shallow flood zone for all of the gradient scenarios, with extent and depth increasing over time. Between the 8 ka cal. BP and present-day scenarios, the flood zone increased from 1186 km2 to 1531 km2 (-29%/o) with depth increasing along four east-west cross-sections by 0.69 m (-61%), 0.91 m (-82%), 0.56 m (-64%) and 0.48 m (-86%). The flood extent and depths increased by a further 18 km2(--5%) and 0.04-0.06 m (2-5%), respectively, by 2 ka in the future. Most of these changes to the flood zone occurred between 8 and 2 ka cal. BP, reflecting an exponential loss of gradient. A rise in flood depth equivalent to that which occurred between 8 ka cal. BP and the present-day, is assessed as increasing the long-term flood hazard; in contrast, the slight rise in depth between the present-day and 2 ka in the future does not.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.168 | 0.053 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".