Flood Risk Assessment in Urban Areas Based on Spatial Analytics and Social Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood maps alone are not sufficient to determine and assess the risks to people, property, infrastructure, and services due to a flood event. Simply put, the risk is almost zero to minimum if the flooded region is “empty” (i.e., unpopulated, has not properties, no industry, no infrastructure, and no socio-economic activity). High spatial resolution Earth Observation (EO) data can contribute to the generation and updating of flood risk maps based on several aspects including population, economic development, and critical infrastructure, which can enhance a city’s flood mitigation and preparedness planning. In this case study for the Don River watershed, Toronto, the flood risk is determined and flood risk index maps are generated by implementing a methodology for estimating risk based on the geographic coverage of the flood hazard, vulnerability of people, and the exposure of large building structures to flood water. Specifically, the spatial flood risk index maps have been generated through analytical spatial modeling which takes into account the areas in which a flood hazard is expected to occur, the terrain’s morphological characteristics, socio-economic parameters based on demographic data, and the density of large building complexes. Generated flood risk maps are verified through visual inspection with 3D city flood maps. Findings illustrate that areas of higher flood risk coincide with areas of high flood hazard and social and building exposure vulnerability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".