MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953423956 · doi:10.3390/rs11131589

Flood Spatial Modeling in Northern Iran Using Remote Sensing and GIS: A Comparison between Evidential Belief Functions and Its Ensemble with a Multivariate Logistic Regression Model

2019· article· en· W2953423956 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersIran National Science Foundation
KeywordsTopographic Wetness IndexFlood mythLogistic regressionFlooding (psychology)Environmental scienceNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexHydrology (agriculture)Altitude (triangle)Receiver operating characteristicGeographic information systemStepwise regressionDrainage basinPhysical geographyDigital elevation modelCartographyRemote sensingGeologyStatisticsGeographyMathematicsClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floods are some of the most dangerous and most frequent natural disasters occurring in the northern region of Iran. Flooding in this area frequently leads to major urban, financial, anthropogenic, and environmental impacts. Therefore, the development of flood susceptibility maps used to identify flood zones in the catchment is necessary for improved flood management and decision making. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of an Evidential Belief Function (EBF) model, both as an individual model and in combination with Logistic Regression (LR) methods, in preparing flood susceptibility maps for the Haraz Catchment in the Mazandaran Province, Iran. The spatial database created consisted of a flood inventory, altitude, slope angle, plan curvature, Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), Stream Power Index (SPI), distance from river, rainfall, geology, land use, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) for the region. After obtaining the required information from various sources, 151 of 211 recorded flooding points were used for model training and preparation of the flood susceptibility maps. For validation, the results of the models were compared to the 60 remaining flooding points. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated to obtain the accuracy of the flood susceptibility maps prepared through success rates (using training data) and prediction rates (using validation data). The AUC results indicated that the EBF, EBF from LR, EBF-LR (enter), and EBF-LR (stepwise) success rates were 94.61%, 67.94%, 86.45%, and 56.31%, respectively, and the prediction rates were 94.55%, 66.41%, 83.19%, and 52.98%, respectively. The results showed that the EBF model had the highest accuracy in predicting flood susceptibility within the catchment, in which 15% of the total areas were located in high and very high susceptibility classes, and 62% were located in low and very low susceptibility classes. These results can be used for the planning and management of areas vulnerable to floods in order to prevent flood-induced damage; the results may also be useful for natural disaster assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it