A high-resolution global flood hazard model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floods are a natural hazard that affect communities worldwide, but to date the vast majority of flood hazard research and mapping has been undertaken by wealthy developed nations. As populations and economies have grown across the developing world, so too has demand from governments, businesses, and NGOs for modeled flood hazard data in these data-scarce regions. We identify six key challenges faced when developing a flood hazard model that can be applied globally and present a framework methodology that leverages recent cross-disciplinary advances to tackle each challenge. The model produces return period flood hazard maps at ∼90 m resolution for the whole terrestrial land surface between 56°S and 60°N, and results are validated against high-resolution government flood hazard data sets from the UK and Canada. The global model is shown to capture between two thirds and three quarters of the area determined to be at risk in the benchmark data without generating excessive false positive predictions. When aggregated to ∼1 km, mean absolute error in flooded fraction falls to ∼5%. The full complexity global model contains an automatically parameterized subgrid channel network, and comparison to both a simplified 2-D only variant and an independently developed pan-European model shows the explicit inclusion of channels to be a critical contributor to improved model performance. While careful processing of existing global terrain data sets enables reasonable model performance in urban areas, adoption of forthcoming next-generation global terrain data sets will offer the best prospect for a step-change improvement in model performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".