Pairwise Elicitation for a Decision Support Framework to Develop a Flood Risk Response Plan
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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".