Communicating disaster risk? An evaluation of the availability and quality of flood maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. One of the key priorities for disaster risk reduction is to ensure decision makers, stakeholders, and the public understand their exposure to disaster risk, so that they can take protective action. Flood maps are a potentially valuable tool for facilitating this understanding of flood risk, but previous research has found that they vary considerably in availability and quality. Using an evaluation framework comprising nine criteria grounded in existing scholarship, this study assessed the quality of flood maps available to the public in Canadian communities located in designated flood risk areas. It found that flood maps in most municipalities (62 %) are low quality (meeting less than 50 % of the criteria) and the highest score was 78 % (seven of nine criteria met). The findings suggest that a more concerted effort to produce high-quality, publicly accessible flood maps is required to support Canada's international commitment to disaster risk reduction. Further questions surround possible weighting of quality assessment criteria, whether and how individuals seek out flood maps, and how flood risk information could be better communicated using modern technology.
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 | 0.045 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".