Pairwise Elicitation for a Decision Support Framework to Develop a Flood Risk Response Plan
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
There are several ways of quantifying flood hazard. When the scale of the analysis is large, flood hazard simulation for an entire city becomes costly and complicated. The first part of this paper proposes utilizing experience and knowledge of local experts about flood characteristics in the area in order to come up with a first-level flood hazard and risk zoning maps, by implementing overlay operations in Arc GIS. In this step, the authors use the concept of pairwise comparison to eliminate the need for carrying out a complicated simulation to quantify flood hazard and risk. The process begins with identifying the main factors that contribute to flooding in a particular area. Pairwise comparison was used to elicit knowledge from local experts and assigned weights for each factor to reflect their relative importance toward flood hazard and risk. In the second part of this paper, the authors present a decision-making framework to support a flood risk response plan. Once the highest risk zones have been identified, a city can develop a risk response plan, for which this paper presents a decision-making framework to select an effective set of alternatives. The framework integrates tools from multicriteria decision-making, charrette design process to guide the pairwise elicitation, and a cost-effective analysis to include the limited budget constraint for any city. The theoretical framework uses the city of Addis Ababa for the first part of the paper. For the second part, the paper utilizes a hypothetical case of Addis Ababa and a mock city infrastructure department to illustrate the implementation of the framework.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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