MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037786197 · doi:10.3390/w12061834

Large Scale Flood Risk Mapping in Data Scarce Environments: An Application for Romania

2020· article· en· W3037786197 on OpenAlexaff
Raffaele Albano, Caterina Samela, Iulia Crăciun, Salvatore Manfreda, Jan Adamowski, Aurelia Sole, Åke Sivertun, Alexandru Ozunu

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythScale (ratio)Vulnerability (computing)Computer scienceFlood risk assessmentEnvironmental resource managementHazardEnvironmental scienceData miningCartographyRemote sensingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale flood risk assessment is essential in supporting national and global policies, emergency operations and land-use management. The present study proposes a cost-efficient method for the large-scale mapping of direct economic flood damage in data-scarce environments. The proposed framework consists of three main stages: (i) deriving a water depth map through a geomorphic method based on a supervised linear binary classification; (ii) generating an exposure land-use map developed from multi-spectral Landsat 8 satellite images using a machine-learning classification algorithm; and (iii) performing a flood damage assessment using a GIS tool, based on the vulnerability (depth–damage) curves method. The proposed integrated method was applied over the entire country of Romania (including minor order basins) for a 100-year return time at 30-m resolution. The results showed how the description of flood risk may especially benefit from the ability of the proposed cost-efficient model to carry out large-scale analyses in data-scarce environments. This approach may help in performing and updating risk assessments and management, taking into account the temporal and spatial changes in hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207