Risk Assessment of Heavy Rain Disasters Using an Interpretable Random Forest Algorithm Enhanced by MAML
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To thoroughly investigate the distribution of heavy rain disaster risks in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region, this paper analyzes the spatiotemporal evolution characteristics of heavy rain disaster-inducing factors. Based on disaster system theory, we constructed a heavy rain disaster risk assessment framework from four dimensions. We improved the application of model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML) in hyperparameter optimization for the random forest (RF) algorithm, thereby developing the MAML-RF heavy rain disaster risk assessment model. This model was compared with the SCV-RF model, which is based on random search and cross-validation (SCV), to determine which model had higher accuracy. Then we introduced the SHAP (Shapley additive explanations) interpretability algorithm to quantify the impact of each risk factor. The results indicate that (1) the annual characteristics of heavy rain days and rainfall amounts show a significant upward trend over the past 17 years; (2) the MAML-RF model improved the accuracy and precision of heavy rain disaster risk simulation by 4.44% and 3.71%, respectively, and reduced training time by 27.95% compared to the SCV-RF model; and (3) the SHAP interpretability algorithm results show that the top five influential factors are the number of heavy rain days, rainfall amount, slope, drainage pipe density, and impervious surface ratio.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".