MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980304676

Structure-Specific Flood Risk Assessment Studies

2019· article· en· W2980304676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Graff, Sally A. McConkey, Brad McVay

Bibliographic record

VenueIDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignIllinois Department of Commerce and Economic OpportunityU.S. Department of Commerce
KeywordsFlood mythRisk assessmentFlood risk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceMedicineArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flooding is a major threat to people, property, and infrastructure in Illinois. To better prepare for flooding disasters and prevent losses, high-quality flood loss information on a structure-by-structure basis is a valuable tool. A structure-by-structure risk assessment provides information that identifies which structures may flood, which frequency of flood impacts structures, the depth of flooding likely for each structure, and the expected losses. One component of this investigation is the field survey data that were collected for individual structures in the City of Ottawa, Peoria County, and parts of Rock Island County, Illinois. Structure-specific risk assessments were performed using this survey data for the City of Ottawa and Peoria County. The steps taken to compile these data and the information necessary to perform the risk assessments are explained. An evaluation of alternative methods to estimate elevations from LiDAR for the project areas is included in this report. A discussion of automated methods to generate building footprint data layers is provided as an appendix

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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)Same topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207