Mapping current and future flood exposure using a 5 m flood model and climate change projections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Local stakeholders need information about areas exposed to potential flooding to manage increasing disaster risk. Moderate- and large-scale flood hazard mapping is often produced at a low spatial resolution, typically using only one source of flooding (e.g., riverine), and it often fails to include climate change. This article assesses flood hazard exposure in the city of Vancouver, Canada, using flood mapping produced by flood risk science experts JBA Risk Management, which represented baseline exposure at 5 m spatial resolution and incorporated climate-change-adjusted values based on different greenhouse gas emission scenarios. The article identifies areas of both current and future flood exposure in the built environment, differentiating between sources of flooding (fluvial, pluvial, storm surge) and climate change scenarios. The case study demonstrates the utility of a flood model with a moderate resolution for informing planning, policy development, and public education. Without recent engineered or regulatory mapping available in all areas across Canada, this model provides a mechanism for identifying possible present and future flood risk at a higher resolution than is available at a Canada-wide coverage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".