Enhancing Design Standard of Agricultural Dam to Reduce Flood Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Agricultural Production Infrastructure Design Standard has not been revised for more than 10 years, except the Drainage Part ( 2012), so it needs to be upgraded to respond to changes in the agricultural environment, such as climate change and agricultural system conversion.In many countries such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, standardized codes have been established for the maintenance of agricultural infrastructure.These codes reflect the latest research and technological trends, and they are updated regularly to ensure efficient operation and management.The need for the revision of agricultural infrastructure design standards is necessary to reflect the latest technologies for responding to agricultural disasters (disasters caused by climate change such as droughts and floods), and to strengthen the standards for reducing flood risk.This study aims to revise the overall contents of the design standards for agricultural dams such as climate change response to reduce flood risk, economic feasibility analysis, and new technology introduction, incorporating the deliberations of the Central Construction Deliberation Committee, the construction standards for emergency discharge facilities, smart management, the Huff method, and the AHP method for the economic analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".