Machine Learning to Evaluate Impacts of Flood Protection in Bangladesh, 1983–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impacts of climate change adaptation strategies need to be evaluated using principled methods spanning sectors and longer time frames. We propose machine-learning approaches to study the long-term impacts of flood protection in Bangladesh. Available data include socio-economic survey and events data (death, migration, etc.) from 1983–2014. These multidecadal data, rare in their extent and quality, provide a basis for using machine-learning approaches even though the data were not collected or designed to assess the impact of the flood control investments. We test whether the embankment has affected the welfare of people over time, benefiting those living inside more than those living outside. Machine-learning approaches enable learning patterns in data to help discriminate between two groups: here households living inside vs. outside. They also help identify the most informative indicators of discrimination and provide robust metrics to evaluate the quality of the model. Overall, we find no significant difference between inside/outside populations based on welfare, migration, or mortality indicators. However, we note a significant difference in inward/outward movement with respect to the embankment. While certain data gaps and spatial heterogeneity in sampled populations suggest caution in any conclusive interpretation of the flood protection infrastructure, we do not see higher benefits accruing to those living with higher levels of protection. This has implications for Bangladesh’s planning for future and more extreme climate futures, including the national Delta Plan, and global investments in climate resilient infrastructure to create positive social impacts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".