Flood Risk Communication Using ArcGIS StoryMaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, flooding is the most common and costly natural hazard. Flooding events significantly impact communities, damage infrastructures and threaten public security. Communication, as part of a flood risk management strategy, is an essential means of countering these threats. It is therefore important to develop new and innovative tools to communicate the flood risk with citizens. From this perspective, the use of story maps can be very effectively implemented for a broad audience, particularly to stakeholders. This paper details how an interactive web-based story map was set up to communicate current and future flood risks in the Petite-Nation River watershed, Quebec (Canada). This web technology application combines informative texts and interactive maps on current and future flood risks in the Petite-Nation River watershed. Flood risk and climate maps were generated using the GARI tool, implemented using a geographic information system (GIS) supported by ArcGIS Online (Esri). Three climate change scenarios developed by the Hydroclimatic Atlas of Southern Quebec were used to visualize potential future impacts. This study concluded that our story map is an efficient flood hazard communication tool. The assets of this interactive web mapping tool are numerous, namely user-friendly mapping, use and interaction, and customizable displays.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".