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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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