MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308697333 · doi:10.3390/e24111630

Spatial Prediction of Current and Future Flood Susceptibility: Examining the Implications of Changing Climates on Flood Susceptibility Using Machine Learning Models

2022· article· en· W4308697333 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlood mythWatershedRandom forestMachine learningMultilayer perceptronEnvironmental scienceFlooding (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGradient boostingHydrology (agriculture)Artificial neural networkWater resource managementPsychologyGeologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this study was to predict current and future flood susceptibility under three climate change scenarios of RCP2.6 (i.e., optimistic), RCP4.5 (i.e., business as usual), and RCP8.5 (i.e., pessimistic) employing four machine learning models, including Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Random Forest (RF), Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP-NN), and Naïve Bayes (NB). The study was conducted for two watersheds in Canada, namely Lower Nicola River, BC and Loup, QC. Three statistical metrics were used to validate the models: Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve, Figure of Merit, and F1-score. Findings indicated that the RF model had the highest accuracy in providing the flood susceptibility maps (FSMs). Moreover, the provided FSMs indicated that flooding is more likely to occur in the Lower Nicola River watershed than the Loup watershed. Following the RCP4.5 scenario, the area percentages of the flood susceptibility classes in the Loup watershed in 2050 and 2080 have changed by the following percentages from the year 2020 and 2050, respectively: Very Low = -1.68%, Low = -5.82%, Moderate = +6.19%, High = +0.71%, and Very High = +0.6% and Very Low = -1.61%, Low = +2.98%, Moderate = -3.49%, High = +1.29%, and Very High = +0.83%. Likewise, in the Lower Nicola River watershed, the changes between the years 2020 and 2050 and between the years 2050 and 2080 were: Very Low = -0.38%, Low = -0.81%, Moderate = -0.95%, High = +1.72%, and Very High = +0.42% and Very Low = -1.31%, Low = -1.35%, Moderate = -1.81%, High = +2.37%, and Very High = +2.1%, respectively. The impact of climate changes on future flood-prone places revealed that the regions designated as highly and very highly susceptible to flooding, grow in the forecasts for both watersheds. The main contribution of this study lies in the novel insights it provides concerning the flood susceptibility of watersheds in British Columbia and Quebec over time and under various climate change scenarios.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.226 · 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