A novel framework for urban flood resilience assessment at the urban agglomeration scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With global climate change and continuous urbanization exacerbating floods, urban flood resilience (UFR) has become a key to cope with floods. However, few studies target frameworks of UFR assessment at the urban agglomeration scale over a longer time span. This study, taking the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration as a case study, developed an evaluation framework to detail the building of a final evaluation index system of UFR, to analyze UFR’s driving factors and spatiotemporal features based on the SSA-PP-KL-TOPSIS (projection pursuit based on sparrow search algorithm-Kullback-Leibler-technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution) model. From the perspectives of comparing numerical values and spatial distribution results, the evaluation indicators and method proposed in this article perform better. The case results showed that UFR displayed an overall growth trend and significant spatial heterogeneities. The economic, social, and infrastructure resilience showed a similar growth trend, while the environmental resilience demonstrated a decreasing trend. Environmental resilience has become a weak link in improving resilience. Higher resilience levels were concentrated in the central metropolis, provincial capitals, and industrial cities. The findings could be of use to researchers and practitioners, and the framework presented would be of reference to other flood-stricken 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".