A novel hybrid <scp>GIS</scp>‐based multi‐criteria decision‐making approach for flood susceptibility analysis in large ungauged watersheds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Characterizing and identification of flood‐susceptible areas can be a solution to mitigate the damages and fatality rate. This study proposes a novel hybrid MCDM framework to assess flood susceptibility in large ungauged watersheds dealing with data scarcity issues. The proposed method examines the interdependencies and causal relationships between various criteria affecting the flooding procedure using the DEcision‐MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL). Moreover, since experts' opinions contain uncertainty, the fuzzy logic is integrated with DEMATEL to overcome this shortcoming. Then, the local weights of criteria were estimated using the Best–Worst Method (BWM) to enhance the pairwise comparisons process. Final criteria weights were obtained using Fuzzy DEMATEL and BWM results in Analytical Network Process (ANP) super‐matrix. Finally, the criteria were distributed spatially using the Complex Proportional Assessment of Alternatives (COPRAS) method based on obtained weights. The proposed method was compared with different approaches such as Fuzzy‐DEMATEL ANP, BWM, and AHP using several statistical measures. We concluded that the novel hybrid proposed method outperformed other approaches based on our results. Moreover, by overlaying classified maps with the historical flood events locations, it was concluded that 85.96% of flooded areas were classified as “high” and “very high.”
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".