Links between Flash Floods and Hydrogeomorphic Approach: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the hazards associated with water requires the use of a hydrogeomorphic approach, which considers both hydrologic and geomorphic aspects. In recent decades, research on flash floods has increasingly adopted this approach. However, the overall number of studies and their trends have not been thoroughly documented. Our study aims to analyze the evolution of scientific publications examining flash floods from a hydrogeomorphic perspective on a global scale to understand the trends and research gaps based on a bibliometric analysis. A comprehensive search for relevant publications was conducted in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, covering the period from 1973 to 2024. The resulting data were processed using R software, whereas the spatial distribution network of the publications was analyzed using VOSviewer software. Our analysis identified 212 articles focusing on flash floods as a hydrogeomorphic process. The number of publications has increased since 2012, peaking in 2023 with 21 new articles. Twenty-eight percent of the publications originated from the United States, Spain, and Italy, whereas the most extensive global collaboration network involved researchers from France, the United States, and Canada. A total of 87% of the publications on temperate zones, whereas 13% addressed intertropical environments, where hydrogeomorphic hazards can be particularly devastating. Our study underscores the importance of future research on flash floods hazards in intertropical zones, highlighting the need to incorporate hydrogeomorphic characteristics and processes into studies of flash floods and related phenomena such as floods, debris flows, landslides, and erosion.
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 | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.148 | 0.169 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".