Accessing the Impact of Meteorological Variables on Machine Learning Flood Susceptibility Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) algorithms have emerged as competent tools for identifying areas that are susceptible to flooding. The primary variables considered in most of these works include terrain models, lithology, river networks and land use. While several recent studies include average annual rainfall and/or temperature, other meteorological information such as snow accumulation and short-term intense rain events that may influence the hydrology of the area under investigation have not been considered. Notably, in Canada, most inland flooding occurs during the freshet, due to the melting of an accumulated snowpack coupled with heavy rainfall. Therefore, in this study the impact of several climate variables along with various hydro-geomorphological (HG) variables were tested to determine the impact of their inclusion. Three tests were run: only HG variables, the addition of annual average temperature and precipitation (HG-PT), and the inclusion of six other meteorological datasets (HG-8M) on five study areas across Canada. In HG-PT, both precipitation and temperature were selected as important in every study area, while in HG-8M a minimum of three meteorological datasets were considered important in each study area. Notably, as the meteorological variables were added, many of the initial HG variables were dropped from the selection set. The accuracy, F1, true skill and Area Under the Curve (AUC) were marginally improved when the meteorological data was added to the a parallel random forest algorithm (parRF). When the model is applied to new data, the estimated accuracy of the prediction is higher in HG-8M, indicating that inclusion of relevant, local meteorological datasets improves the result.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".