Are current tsunami evacuation approaches safe enough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Developing an effective tsunami evacuation plan is essential for disaster risk reduction in coastal regions. To develop effective tsunami evacuation plans, real transportation network, interaction among evacuees, and uncertainties associated with future tsunami events need to be considered in a holistic manner. This study aims to develop such an integrated tsunami evacuation approach using agent-based evacuation simulation and advanced stochastic tsunami hazard assessment. As a case study, a urban area in Padang, Indonesia, threatened by tsunamis from the Mentawai–Sunda subduction zone, is adopted. The uncertainty of the tsunami hazard is taken into account by generating 900 stochastic tsunami inundation maps for three earthquake magnitudes, i.e. 8.5, 8.75, and 9.0. A simplified evacuation approach considering the evacuees moving directly to evacuation areas (defined a priori) is compared with two more rigorous agent-based modeling approaches: (a) a two-destination-point tsunami evacuation plan developed by the local government and (b) a multiple-destination-point plan developed in this study. The improved agent-based stochastic tsunami evacuation framework with multiple destinations takes advantage of the extensive tsunami hazard analyses to define safe areas in a dynamic manner and is capable of capturing the uncertainty of future tsunami risk in coastal areas. In contrast, the results clearly show that the simplified approach significantly underestimates the evacuation time, and the existing tsunami evacuation routes identified by local authorities may be insufficient to save lives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".