Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining Extreme Events: A Cross‐Disciplinary Review

Open access
McPhillips, Lauren E., Chang, Heejun, Chester, Mikhail V., Depietri, Yaella, Friedman, Erin, Grimm, Nancy B., Kominoski, John S., McPhearson, Timon, Méndez‐Lázaro, Pablo, Rosi, Emma J., Shafiei Shiva, Javad·2018·Earth's Future
DOI 10.1002/2017ef000686
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Extreme events are of interest worldwide given their potential for substantial impacts on social, ecological, and technical systems. Many climate‐related extreme events are increasing in frequency and/or magnitude due to anthropogenic climate change, and there is increased potential for impacts due to the location of urbanization and the expansion of urban centers and infrastructures. Many disciplines are engaged in research and management of these events. However, a lack of coherence exists in what constitutes and defines an extreme event across these fields, which impedes our ability to holistically understand and manage these events. Here, we review 10 years of academic literature and use text analysis to elucidate how six major disciplines—climatology, earth sciences, ecology, engineering, hydrology, and social sciences—define and communicate extreme events. Our results highlight critical disciplinary differences in the language used to communicate extreme events. Additionally, we found a wide range in definitions and thresholds, with more than half of examined papers not providing an explicit definition, and disagreement over whether impacts are included in the definition. We urge distinction between extreme events and their impacts, so that we can better assess when responses to extreme events have actually enhanced resilience. Additionally, we suggest that all researchers and managers of extreme events be more explicit in their definition of such events as well as be more cognizant of how they are communicating extreme events. We believe clearer and more consistent definitions and communication can support transdisciplinary understanding and management of extreme events.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2017ef000686

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
McPhillips, L. E., Chang, H., Chester, M. V., Depietri, Y., Friedman, E., Grimm, N. B., Kominoski, J. S., McPhearson, T., Méndez‐Lázaro, P., Rosi, E. J., & Shafiei Shiva, J.
Venue
Earth's Future
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published
2018-03
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
441-455
ISSN
2328-4277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/2017ef000686
OpenAlex
W2792365086
Cited by
317
References
95
FWCI
12.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.