Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 03019
Number of page(s) 6
Section Performance and behaviour of flood defences
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160703019
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. Vuillet M., Peyras L., Carvajal C., Serre D., Diab Y., (2013). “Levees performance evaluation based on subjective probability”. European Journal of Environment and Civil Engineering, Volume 17, issue 5/2013, pp 329–349. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kahneman. D., Slovic P., Tversky A. (1982). «Judgement under Uncertainty, Heuristics and Biaises». Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Morgan M.G., Henrion M. (1990). Uncertainty, a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis, Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. O’Hagan A., Buck C. E., Daneshkah A., Eiser J. R., Garthwaite P.H., Jenkinson D.J., Oakley J.E., Rakow T. (2006). Uncetains Judgments : Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities, West Sussex, UK, 338 p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooke R. (1991). «Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science». Oxford University Press, 336 p. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooke R.M., Goosens L. (2000). “Nuclear science and technology. Procedure guide for structured expert judgment”. Report to European commission. S. P. N. F. S. 1994-98, Luxembourg Ruratom. Project report EUR 18820EN. [Google Scholar]
  7. Meyer M.A., Booker. J.M. (1993). «Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A practical Guide», ASA-SIAM Series on Statistics and Applied Probability. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ortiz N.R., Wheeler T.A., Breeding R. J., Hora S., Meyer M.A., Keeney R.L. (1991). “Use of Expert Judgment in NUREG-1150” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 126, pp. 313–331. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Muffat S. (2005). «Professionnalisation du recueil des avis d’experts pour l’analyse des risques», Note EDF HT-52/05/023/A. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pietrocatelli S. (2008). «Analyse bayésienne et élicitation d’opinion d’experts en analyse de risqué et particulièrement dans le cas de l’amiante chrysotile ». Mémoire de master, Université de Montréal, 110p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Banton O. et Bangoy L. M. (1997) : Hydrogéologie : Multi-science environnementale des eaux souterraines. Université du Québec / AUPELF, 460p. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vuillet M. (2012). «Elaboration d’un modèle d’aide à la décision basé sur une approche probabiliste pour l’évaluation de la performance des digues fluviales », Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris Est, Ecole doctorale Ville, transport et territoires, 391 p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Yachanin S. A.,Tweney R. D. (1982). The effect of the thematic content on cognitive strategies in the four-card selection task. Bulletin of the Psychometric Society, 19, 87–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wood L. et Ford, J.M. (1993). « Structuring Interviews with Experts During Knowledge Elicitation », Ford et Bradshaw (dir.), Knowledge Acquisition as Modeling, New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc. [Google Scholar]
  15. Castany G. (1982) : Principes et méthodes de l’hydrogéologie. Université de Pierre et Marie Crue (Paris VI), 233p. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fauchard C., Mériaux P. (2004). Méthodes géophysiques et géotechniques pour le diagnostic des digues de protection contre les crues. Guide pour la mise en oeuvre et l’interprétation. Cemagref Editions, 124 p. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bouchon-Meunier B. (1995). La logique floue et ses applications. Addison-Wesley, 254 p. [Google Scholar]
  18. Serre D., Peyras L., Tourment R., Diab Y., (2008), levee performance assessment: development of a GIS tool to support planning maintenance actions, journal of infrastructure system, asce, Vol. 14, issue 3, pp. 201–213. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.