Flood Hazard Mapping Using Fuzzy Logic, Analytical Hierarchy Process, and Multi-Source Geospatial Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iran is among the driest countries in the world, where many natural hazards, such as floods, frequently occur. This study introduces a straightforward flood hazard assessment approach using remote sensing datasets and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment in an area located in the western part of Iran. Multiple GIS and remote sensing datasets, including Digital Elevation Model (DEM), slope, rainfall, distance from the main rivers, Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) maps, soil type map, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), and erosion rate were initially produced. Then, all datasets were converted into fuzzy values using a linear fuzzy membership function. Subsequently, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique was applied to determine the weight of each dataset, and the relevant weight values were then multiplied to fuzzy values. Finally, all the processed parameters were integrated using a fuzzy analysis to produce the flood hazard map with five classes of susceptible zones. The bi-temporal Sentinel-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images, acquired before and on the day of the flood event, were used to evaluate the accuracy of the produced flood hazard map. The results indicated that 95.16% of the actual flooded areas were classified as very high and high flood hazard classes, demonstrating the high potential of this approach for flood hazard mapping.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".