Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this report is to review the existing satellites monitoring Earth’s resources and natural disasters. Each satellite has different repeat pass frequency and spatial resolution (unless it belongs to the same series of satellites for the purpose of continuation of data flow with same specifications). Similarly, different satellites have different types of sensors on-board, such as, panchromatic, multispectral, infrared and thermal. All these sensors have applications in disaster mitigation, though depending on the electromagnetic characteristics of the objects on Earth and the nature of disaster itself. With a review of the satellites in orbit and their sensors the present work provides an insight to suitability of satellites and sensors to different natural disasters. For example, thermal sensors capture fire hazards, infrared sensors are more suitable for floods and microwave sensors can record soil moisture. Several kinds of disasters, such as, earthquake, volcano, tsunami, forest fire, hurricane and floods are considered for the purpose of disaster mitigation studies in this report. However, flood phenomenon has been emphasized upon in this study with more detailed account of remote sensing and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) applicability. Examples of flood forecasting and flood mapping presented in this report illustrate the capability of remote sensing and GIS technology in delineating flood risk areas and assessing the damages after the flood recedes. With the help of a case study of the Upper Thames River watershed the use of remote sensing and GIS has been illustrated for better understanding. The case study enables the professionals and planning authorities to realize the impact of urbanization on river flows. As the urban sprawl increases with the increase of population, the rainfall and snow melt reaches the river channels at a faster rate with higher intensity. In other words it can be inferred that through careful land use planning flood disasters can be mitigated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".