Unravelling compound risks of hydrological extrems in a changing climate: typology, methods and futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have witnessed and experienced increasing compound extreme events resulting from simultaneous or sequential occurrence of multiple events in a changing climate. In addition to a growing demand for a clearer explanation of compound risks from a hydrological perspective, there has been a lack of attention paid to socioeconomic factors driving and impacted by these risks. Through a critical review and co-production approaches, we identified four types of compound hydrological events based on autocorrelated, multivariate, and spatiotemporal patterns. A framework to quantify compound risks based on conditional probability is offered, including an argument on the potential use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms for identifying emerging trends and patterns for climate change. Insights for practices are discussed, highlighting the implications for disaster risk reduction and knowledge co-production. Our argument centres on the importance of meaningfully considering the socioeconomic contexts in which compound risks may have impacts, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to effectively translate climate science to climate actions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".