Collaborative Strategies for Sustainable EU Flood Risk Management: FOSS and Geospatial Tools—Challenges and Opportunities for Operative Risk Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analysis of global statistics shows a substantial increase in flood damage over the past few decades. Moreover, it is expected that flood risk will continue to rise due to the combined effect of increasing numbers of people and economic assets in risk-prone areas and the effects of climate change. In order to mitigate the impact of natural hazards on European economies and societies, improved risk assessment, and management needs to be pursued. With the recent transition to a more risk-based approach in European flood management policy, flood analysis models have become an important part of flood risk management (FRM). In this context, free and open-source (FOSS) geospatial models provide better and more complete information to stakeholders regarding their compliance with the Flood Directive (2007/60/EC) for effective and collaborative FRM. A geospatial model is an essential tool to address the European challenge for comprehensive and sustainable FRM because it allows for the use of integrated social and economic quantitative risk outcomes in a spatio-temporal domain. Moreover, a FOSS model can support governance processes using an interactive, transparent and collaborative approach, providing a meaningful experience that both promotes learning and generates knowledge through a process of guided discovery regarding flood risk management. This article aims to organize the available knowledge and characteristics of the methods available to give operational recommendations and principles that can support authorities, local entities, and the stakeholders involved in decision-making with regard to flood risk management in their compliance with the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC).
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 | 0.032 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".