Design with floods: from defence against a ‘Natural’ threat to adaptation to a human-natural process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing that traditional flood management interventions focus on defence, attempting to eliminate contingencies in the urban relationship with rivers, an emergent perspective, spearheaded by spatial design, seeks to deal with floods through a more holistic framework.In contrast to the prevalent 'design against floods' approach that targets either the hazard or the exposure components of flood risk, 'design with floods' focuses as well on the assets at stake (including the built envelopes of exposed people and activities, usually covered under the term vulnerability), duly acknowledging the intertwining of natural and human processes.Using a multiple case study comprising three European flood-prone urban projects, we explore potentials of spatial design as an adaptation tool that goes beyond flood protection to foster wider societal gains.Our analyses have so far suggested that 'design with floods' requires a positive stance through which problem-solving and sense-making approaches are merged to provide both safety and urbanity (enriched urban realm and experience), without eliminating floods per se, accepted as a complex hybrid process.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".