MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315646729 · doi:10.1111/jfr3.12876

Integrated assessment of flood risk in Arial Khan floodplain of Bangladesh under changing climate and socioeconomic conditions

2023· article· en· W4315646729 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Md. Sadiul Alam Chyon, Subir Biswas, M. Shahjahan Mondal, Binata Roy, Afeefa Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Flood Risk Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsFloodplainFlood mythSocioeconomic statusHazardVulnerability (computing)Climate changeRepresentative Concentration PathwaysEnvironmental scienceBaseline (sea)Natural hazardWater resource managementGeographyClimate modelEnvironmental healthMeteorologyComputer sciencePopulationGeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the assessment of flood risk, the future flood hazard due to climate change is often tied to the present socioeconomic conditions. This makes an implicit assumption that the drivers of risk, other than the hazard, remain constant with time. Therefore, such risk assessment does not provide a realistic outlook for devising plausible mitigation strategies and plans. In this study, flood risk was assessed from an integrated perspective by considering both physical hazard, and socioeconomic exposure and vulnerability—all changing with time. The flood hazard in the Arial Khan River floodplain in the southcentral Bangladesh was simulated with a two‐dimensional hydrodynamic model, and the exposure and vulnerability were projected using different statistical techniques. Principal component analysis was conducted to assign weights to the indicators of hazard, exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The results show that the flood depth, duration, and extent would increase from the baseline to 2080s under regional concentration pathway (RCP) 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. The sensitivity and vulnerability would decrease, reflecting an improved adaptive capacity. The low‐risk areas could increase from 62% in the baseline to 85%–91% in 2080s depending on the RCPs. The approach followed can be applied elsewhere in developing countries, particularly in riverine floodplain settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Flood Risk ManagementSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207