Systematic Mapping of Global Research on Disaster Damage Estimation for Buildings: A Machine Learning-Aided Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on disaster damage estimation for buildings has gained extensive attention due to the increased number of disastrous events, facilitating risk assessment, the effective integration of disaster resilience measures, and policy development. A systematic mapping study has been conducted, focusing on disaster damage estimation studies to identify trends, relationships, and gaps in this large and exponentially growing subject area. A novel approach using machine learning algorithms to screen, categorise, and map the articles was adopted to mitigate the constraints of manual handling. Out of 8608 articles from major scientific databases, the most relevant 2186 were used in the analysis. These articles were classified based on the hazard, geographical location, damage function properties, and building properties. Key observations reveal an emerging trend in publications, with most studies concentrated in developed and severely disaster-affected countries in America, Europe, and Asia. A significant portion (68%) of the relevant articles focus on earthquakes. However, as the key research opportunities, a notable research gap exists in studies focusing on the African and South American continents despite the significant damage caused by disasters there. Additionally, studies on floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis are minimal compared to those on earthquakes. Further trends and relationships in current studies were analysed to convey insights from the literature, identifying research gaps in terms of hazards, geographical locations, and other relevant parameters. These insights aim to effectively guide future research in disaster damage estimation for buildings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".