MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396988319 · doi:10.29173/eureka28816

Projected performance of green infrastructure strategies for flood mitigation in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta

2024· article· en· W4396988319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEureka · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFlooding (psychology)Green infrastructureFlood mitigationEnvironmental scienceVulnerability (computing)Surface runoffResilience (materials science)Water resource managementGovernment (linguistics)IncentiveDrainageEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningBusinessComputer scienceGeographyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) delta – the world’s most populous river delta – faces heightened susceptibility to the rise in flooding disasters due to climate change, impacting millions annually. Current flood management strategies are unsustainable and ineffective, and resilient flood management is needed. A promising alternative is the strategic implementation of green infrastructure (GI) applications, which have proven effective in flood management in other regions. Methods: An analysis of the region’s past and future vulnerability to flooding is conducted. Then, green infrastructure performance metrics from regions with similar climatic conditions are extrapolated for the GBM. Green roofs, permeable pavements, and rain gardens were identified as the most suitable GI types for the GBM. Finally, computer simulations were employed to analyze the performance of different implementations of GI within a model city. Results: The simulations showed that 0% green rooftop coverage, 100% permeable pavement coverage, and 40% rain garden coverage were the most feasible GI layout. This configuration resulted in the most preferable balance between cost effectiveness and reduced runoff. Green rooftops were minimized due to high installation costs relative to their retention capacity, whereas permeable pavements and rain garden coverage were maximized. Conclusions: The studies show GI’s potential for flood mitigation and resilience in the GBM region. GI initiatives align with the region's flood mitigation policies and are thus feasible to implement with aid from government incentives. Furthermore, the computer program developed for this analysis could serve as a valuable tool for assessing GI implementation limits and offering guidance to policymakers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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