MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408552437 · doi:10.3389/frwa.2025.1514047

Enhancing flood prediction through remote sensing, machine learning, and Google Earth Engine

2025· article· en· W4408552437 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Water · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Saint-Boniface
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythComputer scienceRemote sensingEarth (classical element)GeologyGeographyArchaeologyAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floods are the most common natural hazard, causing major economic losses and severely affecting people’s lives. Therefore, accurately identifying vulnerable areas is crucial for saving lives and resources, particularly in regions with restricted access and insufficient data. The aim of this study was to automate the identification of flood-prone areas within a data-scarce, mountainous watershed using remote sensing (RS) and machine learning (ML) models. In this study, we integrate the Normalized Difference Flood Index (NDFI), using Google Earth Engine to generate flood inventory, which is considered a crucial step in flood susceptibility mapping. Seventeen determining factors, namely, elevation, slope, aspect, curvature, the Stream Power Index (SPI), the Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), the Topographic Ruggedness Index (TRI), the Topographic Position Index (TPI), distance from roads, distance from rivers, stream density, rainfall, lithology, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), land use, length slope (LS) factor, and the Convergence Index were used to map the flood vulnerability. This study aimed to assess the predictive performance of gradient boosting, AdaBoost, and random forest. The model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC). The performance assessment results showed that random forest (RF) achieved the highest accuracy (1), followed by random forest and gradient boosting ensemble (RF-GB) (0.96), gradient boosting (GB) (0.95), and AdaBoost (AdaB) (0.83). Additionally, in this research study, we employed the Shapely Additive Explanations (SHAP) method, to explain machine learning model predictions and determine the most contributing factor in each model. This study introduces a novel approach to generate flood inventory, providing significant insights into flood susceptibility mapping, and offering potential pathways for future research and practical applications. Overall, the research emphasizes the need to integrate urban planning with emergency preparedness to build safer and more resilient communities.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.197 · 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