Spatial Prediction of Current and Future Flood Susceptibility: Examining the Implications of Changing Climates on Flood Susceptibility Using Machine Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".