FLOOD SUSCEPTIBILITY MODELLING USING GEOSPATIAL-BASED MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING IN LARGE SCALE AREAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Flood is one of the most hazardous natural disasters that cause damages and poses a major threat to human lives and infrastructures worldwide, and its prevention is almost unfeasible. Thus, the detection of flood susceptible areas can be a key to lessen the amount of destruction and mortality. This study aims to implement a framework to identify flood potential zones in an ungauged large-scale area with frequent flood events in recent years. We used two Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approaches combined with geospatial analysis, and remote sensing observations for this susceptibility analysis. Nine geomorphological and environmental factors that have an impact on flood behaviour were selected and used for susceptibility modelling. At first, the criteria’s weights were estimated using two MCDM approaches and based on experts’ knowledge. The resultant weights revealed that Flow Accumulation, Topographic wetness index, and Distance to River were the most influential flood susceptibility criteria. After calculating these weights, the criteria’s layers were aggregated through geospatial analysis, which resulted in generating flood susceptibility map. The area under the curve (AUC) and statistical measures such as the Kappa index were used to evaluate the proposed method's efficiency. The validation results illustrate that hybrid FAHP, with AUC= 96.68 and Kappa = 81.36 performed more efficiently than standard AHP, with AUC= 94.53 and Kappa=76.35. Overlaying these maps with the historical flood inventory dataset revealed that 86.43% of flooded areas were categorized as “high” and “very high”. Therefore, the flood susceptibility maps generated through the proposed approach can help the decision-makers and managers allocate the mitigation equipment and facility in data-scarce and ungauged large-scale areas.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".