3D FLOOD-RISK MODELS OF GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulating and predicting floods and its effects on utilities provides powerful visual representation for decision making on when buildings in the flood zone may be safe for people to occupy. Traditional paper maps and digital maps may not give us the possibility to do a 3D visualization in order to study the detailed effect of a flood situation on utilities. This research explores LiDAR data and the application of 3D modelling in order to provide an analysis of the risk of floods on government buildings and utilities. LiDAR data provides a cheaper, faster and denser multidimensional coverage of features for 3D mapping. LiDAR data was acquired for the city of Fredericton in 2007. This data was processed to generate 3D maps. By employing accurate coordinate conversion and transformations with respect to the geoid, a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was created. Flood polygons were created for 0.2m intervals in height for the study area. Initial study allows for this interval to be considered, since little difference in flooding behaviour is noticeable below this interval. To further strengthen visual perception, 3D buildings, infrastructure and utilities were modelled for the study area. The DTM and the 3D models of the government buildings, infrastructure and utilities were intersected. The resulting view does not only register a new scenario but also provides a more realistic outlook of the buildings and infrastructure during floods. Finally, a flood scene was produced for each of the forecasted flood levels for visualization via Web interface. 1.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it