Enhancing flood risk mitigation by advanced data-driven approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood events in the Sefidrud River basin have historically caused significant damage to infrastructure, agriculture, and human settlements, highlighting the urgent need for improved flood prediction capabilities. Traditional hydrological models have shown limitations in capturing the complex, non-linear relationships inherent in flood dynamics. This study addresses these challenges by leveraging advanced machine learning techniques to develop more accurate and reliable flood estimation models for the region. The study applied Random Forest (RF), Bagging, SMOreg, Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) models using historical hydrological data spanning 50 years. The methods involved splitting the data into training (50-70 %) and validation sets, processed using WEKA 3.9 software. The evaluation revealed that the nonlinear ensemble RF model achieved the highest accuracy with a correlation of 0.868 and an root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.104. Both RF and MLP significantly outperformed the linear SMOreg approach, demonstrating the suitability of modern machine learning techniques. Additionally, the ANFIS model achieved an exceptional R-squared accuracy of 0.99. The findings underscore the potential of data-driven models for accurate flood estimating, providing a valuable benchmark for algorithm selection in flood risk management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".