MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204979634 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0819

Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process framework for quantifying the flood resilience of housing infrastructure systems

2021· article· en· W3204979634 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. K. Sen, Subhrajit Dutta, Golam Kabir, Shamim Ahmed Laskar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythResilience (materials science)Analytic hierarchy processProcess (computing)Computer scienceFuzzy logicRisk analysis (engineering)Analytic network processEnvironmental resource managementCritical infrastructureBusinessEngineeringOperations researchEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Housing constitutes a basic need for all living beings. Unfortunately, natural hazards, including floods, pose a severe threat to housing infrastructure systems. In turn, this paper develops a framework to quantify the resilience of housing infrastructure systems against flood hazards. The parameters for this resilience are based on the literature and knowledge from experts. This paper gauges the significance of each resilience parameter by using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the fuzzy AHP. The evaluated values are then compared to observe the effectiveness of fuzzy AHP over AHP. The evaluated importance of each parameter will help stakeholders focus on the most important parameters and, in turn, boost the flood resilience of infrastructure. This paper then implements the developed framework in a study area to quantify local flood resilience. This resilience value will help stakeholders in the considered area to understand the resilience of local housing infrastructure.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207