MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132505287 · doi:10.1002/ird.237

Flood management under rapid urbanisation and industrialisation in flood-prone areas: a need for serious consideration

2006· article· en· W2132505287 on OpenAlexaff
Bart Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueIrrigation and Drainage · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationFlood mythIndustrialisationGeographyWater resource managementUrban expansionPopulationLand reclamationEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increasing proportion of the world's population is living and working in flood-prone areas. There are no indications that this tendency will change. In the rural areas we may observe improvements in agricultural production and an increase in the value of crops, farm buildings, water management facilities and infrastructure. In addition, due to urbanisation, industrialisation and improving standards of living, especially in the emerging countries, the value of property, buildings and infrastructure has significantly increased and will further increase in future. Especially in flood-prone areas in South and East Asia we may observe a very rapid growth of urban areas. In order to cope with this growth of new urban areas reclamation has very often taken place in nearby low-lying areas. From a flood protection and water management point of view this implies removal of storage areas and increase in urban drainage discharges. The paper presents the various developments and their consequences with respect to flood management. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrrigation and DrainageSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207