MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210442711 · doi:10.21083/surg.v14i1.6713

Application of LiDAR-Derived Data using Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and Stochastic Modelling; A Flood Risk Analysis of the Mersey River, Nova Scotia

2022· article· en· W4210442711 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alejandro Nieto, Daniel Elliot Almuina Pica, Tyler Stange

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFlooding (psychology)LidarFloodplainEnvironmental scienceNova scotiaFlood risk assessmentVulnerability (computing)Hydrology (agriculture)Geographic information systemWater resource managementEnvironmental resource managementGeographyRemote sensingComputer scienceCartographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Maritime province of Nova Scotia has seen coastal flooding become a more frequent phenomenon during the past decades due to the changing climate regime. This has influenced the interest provincial and federal governments have in flood risk modelling, who often incorporate Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as useful tools in their analysis. Incorporating LiDAR-derived digital elevation models (DEMs) in their workflows is the next step in hydrological analysis, as LiDAR-derived DEMs offer high resolution data for the analysis of flood risk without the need to rely on biotic or hydrological data. This study aims to follow this theme in order to model the effects of inland flooding in the low relief landscape of the Mersey River, located in Queen’s County, Nova Scotia, and its effects on the infrastructure built along the river network. The analysis included multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) methods coupled with a stochastic simulation approach in order to determine areas where vulnerability is the most certain. Results indicated that high flood risk is present in urbanized areas within 1 km of the Mersey River at a low degree of uncertainty, making them the best candidates for flood-preventive measures. The accuracy provided by LiDAR-derived DEMs supported a high-quality workflow for the MCE and DEM error analysis, proving their utility for floodplain delineation. The addition of historical and hydrological data to future projects could build on the results presented in this study, adding more to the literature on flood risk modelling along the Mersey River.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207