A comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives using <scp>GIS</scp>‐based river hydraulics modelling and multicriteria decision analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A multicriteria framework is developed for the selection of optimal flood mitigation and river training measures in a selected reach of Z aremroud R iver in N orthern I ran. A river model, H ydrologic E ngineering C enter R iver A nalysis S ystem, combined with geographic information system analysis is used to simulate water levels for steady, gradually varied flow and mapping inundated flood extents. The modelling is performed for four different alternatives, considering various channel modifications with different dimensions and levee construction. Flood inundation area, flood level, flow velocity and stream power on the downstream and outside of the river bend are used as decision criteria for each alternative. Economic analysis is conducted to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of each alternative. The decision analysis method, technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution, is used to compare different flood hazard mitigation measures based on risk, and environmental and economic impacts criteria. The findings of the analysis are that a levee construction at the right side of the river bank adjacent to the residential area is superior to the other three alternatives, which is confirmed using a scenario analysis of different flood mitigation measures.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it