A geological disaster prevention expert dispatching method and device and a storage medium

Abstract

This application provides a method, device, and storage medium for expert dispatching in geological disaster prevention, relating to the field of geological disaster emergency management technology. The expert dispatching method includes: determining the disaster level based on geological disaster information and current standards and requesting the activation of a corresponding prevention response; after approval, obtaining expert location information and updating expert ratings according to a dispatching rating rule that includes six indicators such as distance from the disaster site; retrieving a set number of experts with corresponding ratings according to a preset matching rule, and determining the selected experts based on the matching degree between expert registration information and disaster type; acquiring expert field work logs in real time and analyzing task termination conditions based on updated disaster information; after task termination, accumulating expert evaluation index values, recalculating ratings, and updating the expert database. Using the expert dispatching method provided in this application can achieve optimized dispatching of expert resources, improving the efficiency and accuracy of geological disaster prevention and response.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of geological disaster emergency management technology, and in particular to a geological disaster prevention expert dispatching method, device and storage medium. Background Technology

[0002] Geological disasters (such as landslides, collapses, and debris flows) are characterized by their suddenness and destructiveness. Timely and effective emergency response is crucial to reducing casualties and property losses. In geological disaster prevention, on-site investigation, risk assessment, and response guidance by experts play a central role. Therefore, a scientific and reasonable expert dispatch mechanism is an important guarantee for improving emergency response capabilities.

[0003] In existing technologies, the dispatch of geological disaster prevention experts largely relies on manual experience and judgment, which has the following shortcomings: First, the expert rating standards are fixed and are not dynamically adjusted in conjunction with real-time information at the time of disaster (such as the distance between the expert and the disaster site). This may result in dispatched experts being unable to arrive at the scene in a timely manner due to excessive distance, affecting the timeliness of emergency response. Second, there is insufficient matching between experts and disaster types. Dispatch is often based solely on expert ratings without fully considering the types of geological disasters that experts are good at. This may lead to a mismatch between the expert's professional capabilities and the needs of on-site response, reducing the effectiveness of the response. Third, the performance of experts is disconnected from rating updates. It is impossible to dynamically optimize expert ratings through past disaster relief efforts, making it difficult to achieve long-term optimized allocation of expert resources.

[0004] Therefore, in view of the shortcomings of the existing technology, there is an urgent need for a geological disaster prevention expert scheduling method that can dynamically update expert ratings, accurately match disaster types with expert capabilities, and optimize the allocation of expert resources, so as to at least partially solve the above technical problems. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In view of this, embodiments of this application provide a geological disaster prevention expert scheduling method, apparatus and storage medium to at least solve one of the problems in the prior art.

[0006] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for dispatching experts in geological disaster prevention, the expert dispatching method comprising: Based on geological disaster information, the geological disaster level is determined according to current standards, and a corresponding level of defense response event is requested to be initiated. After receiving the approval information for the defense response event, the system requests the current location information of all experts registered in the expert database of the expert dispatch system. Based on the current expert location and the disaster site, the rating of all experts in the expert database is updated for the first time according to the pre-set expert dispatch rating rules. The rating indicators of the expert dispatch rating rules include expert title score, distance from the disaster site, number of historical disaster relief days, number of landslides dealt with, number of collapses dealt with, and number of debris flows dealt with. Based on the defense response event level, a set number of experts with corresponding expert ratings determined according to preset matching rules are retrieved. Obtain the registration information of a set number of experts in the expert database, and determine the experts to be dispatched to the disaster site based on the matching information of the experts with the current geological disaster type; The system obtains real-time field work logs filled out by selected experts after they arrive at the disaster site, and combines these logs with updated geological disaster information to comprehensively assess whether the conditions for mission termination have been met. Based on the on-site work logs at the time the mission was stopped, the evaluation indicators of the selected experts, except for the distance from the disaster site, were accumulated, the ratings of the selected experts were recalculated, and the ratings of the selected experts in the expert database were updated for the second time.

[0007] Secondly, embodiments of this application also provide a geological disaster prevention expert dispatching device, the expert dispatching device comprising: Memory is used to store executable instructions for a computer; A processor, used to execute computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, implements the expert scheduling method of the above technical solution.

[0008] Thirdly, embodiments of this application also provide a storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions are used to cause a computer to execute the expert scheduling method of the above-described technical solution.

[0009] According to the geological disaster prevention expert dispatch method proposed in this application, the disaster level is determined based on geological disaster information and current standards, and corresponding prevention responses are requested. The real-time location of experts is obtained, and the expert rating is updated for the first time according to expert dispatch rules including six indicators such as distance from the disaster site. The selected experts are determined based on the disaster type matching degree, and on-site logs are obtained in real time to assess the conditions for mission termination. After the mission is completed, the indicators are accumulated, the rating is recalculated, and the expert database is updated a second time. This scheme enables dynamic adjustment of expert ratings, solving the problems of fixed ratings and poor timeliness in existing technologies. It can accurately match geological disasters with experts' areas of expertise, improve the accuracy of expert dispatch, construct a closed-loop process to ensure the adaptation of expert resources, improve emergency response efficiency, and reduce disaster losses.

[0010] Additional advantages, objectives, and features of this application will be set forth in part in the description which follows, and will in part become apparent to those skilled in the art upon review of the following description, or may be learned by practice of the application. The objectives and other advantages of this application can be realized and obtained by means of the structures specifically pointed out in the specification and drawings.

[0011] Those skilled in the art will understand that the purposes and advantages that can be achieved with this application are not limited to those specifically described above, and that the above and other purposes that this application can achieve will be more clearly understood from the following detailed description. Attached Figure Description

[0012] The accompanying drawings, which are included to provide a further understanding of this application and form part of this application, do not constitute a limitation thereof. The components in the drawings are not drawn to scale but are merely for illustrating the principles of this application. For ease of illustration and description of certain parts of this application, corresponding portions in the drawings may be enlarged, i.e., may appear larger relative to other components in an exemplary device actually manufactured according to this application. In the drawings: Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a geological disaster prevention expert dispatching method according to an embodiment of this application; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a geological disaster prevention expert dispatching device according to an embodiment of this application; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of a geological disaster prevention expert dispatch system according to an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0013] The purposes and functions of this application, as well as the methods for achieving these purposes and functions, will be clarified by referring to exemplary embodiments. However, this application is not limited to the exemplary embodiments disclosed below; it can be implemented in various forms. The specification is merely intended to help those skilled in the art to comprehensively understand the specific details of this application.

[0014] It should be noted that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the exemplary embodiments according to this application. As used herein, the singular form is intended to include the plural form as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Furthermore, it should be understood that when the terms “comprising” and / or “including” are used in this specification, they indicate the presence of features, integrals, steps, operations, elements, and / or components, but do not exclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integrals, steps, operations, elements, components, and / or combinations thereof.

[0015] Ordinal numbers such as “first” and “second” used in this application are merely identifiers and have no other meaning, such as a specific order. Moreover, for example, the term “first component” does not imply the existence of a “second component”, and the term “second component” does not imply the existence of a “first component”.

[0016] It should be noted that the terms “up,” “down,” “front,” “back,” “left,” “right,” “inner,” “outer,” and similar expressions used in this article are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be limiting.

[0017] In the following description, embodiments of the present application will be illustrated with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the drawings, the same reference numerals represent the same or similar parts, or the same or similar steps.

[0018] First, refer to Figure 1 This application describes a geological disaster prevention expert scheduling method 100 according to an embodiment of the present application. For example... Figure 1 As shown, the expert scheduling method 100 may include steps S110 to S150, as detailed below: In step S110, based on geological disaster information and current standards, the geological disaster level is determined and a corresponding defense response event is requested to be initiated. After receiving the approval information for the defense response event, the system requests the current expert location information from all experts registered in the expert database of the expert dispatch system. Based on the current expert location and the disaster site, the rating of all experts in the expert database is updated for the first time according to the preset expert dispatch rating rules. The rating indicators of the expert dispatch rating rules include expert title score, distance from the disaster site, number of historical disaster relief days, number of landslides dealt with, number of collapses dealt with, and number of debris flows dealt with.

[0019] In step S120, based on the defense response event level, a set number of experts with corresponding expert ratings determined according to preset matching rules are retrieved.

[0020] In step S130, the registration information of a set number of experts in the expert database is obtained, and the experts to be dispatched to the disaster site are determined based on the matching of the experts' registration information with the current geological disaster type.

[0021] In step S140, the on-site work log filled out by the selected experts after they arrived at the disaster site is obtained in real time. Combined with the updated geological disaster information, a comprehensive assessment is made as to whether the conditions for stopping the mission have been met.

[0022] In step S150, based on the on-site work log at the time the task stopped, the evaluation indicators of the selected experts, except for the distance from the disaster site, are accumulated, the rating of the selected experts is recalculated, and the rating of the selected experts in the expert database is updated for the second time.

[0023] As described above, implementing this expert scheduling method can achieve dynamic adjustment of expert ratings, solving the problems of fixed expert ratings and poor scheduling timeliness in existing technologies. By prioritizing the matching of disaster types with experts' areas of expertise, the accuracy of expert selection can be improved, ensuring that expert resources are adapted to disaster response needs, improving the emergency response efficiency of geological disaster prevention, and reducing the risk of disaster losses caused by improper expert scheduling.

[0024] The following will describe in detail the above steps of the expert scheduling method according to the embodiments of this application.

[0025] In the embodiments of this application, in step S110, the geological disaster level is determined based on the geological disaster information according to the current standards, and a corresponding level of defense response event is requested to be initiated; after receiving the defense response event approval information, the current expert location information is requested from all experts registered in the expert database of the expert scheduling system, and the rating of all experts in the expert database is updated for the first time based on the current expert location and the disaster site according to the preset expert scheduling rating rules; wherein, the rating indicators of the expert scheduling rating rules include expert title score, distance from the disaster site, historical disaster relief days, number of landslides dealt with, number of collapses dealt with, and number of debris flows dealt with.

[0026] Specifically, in step S110, determining the geological hazard level according to current standards and requesting the activation of the corresponding level of defense response event specifically refers to: Geological disaster levels are classified into four categories—small, medium, large, and extra-large—based on current national standards such as the "Regulations on Geological Disaster Prevention and Control" and the "Specifications for Rapid Reporting of Geological Disasters," as well as local implementation rules. These categories are determined by core indicators such as casualties, property losses, number of people threatened, and the scope of disaster impact. Correspondingly, defense response event levels are classified into four levels—level four, level three, level two, and level one—based on the intensity of emergency response and the scale of resource allocation, forming a precise correspondence mechanism between "disaster level" and "response level." The specific classification standards for geological disasters of each level are as follows: Small geological disasters refer to those that cause fewer than 3 deaths (including missing persons), or direct economic losses of less than 1 million yuan, or fewer than 100 people threatened; Medium geological disasters refer to those that cause 3 to 10 deaths (including missing persons), or direct economic losses of more than 1 million yuan but less than 5 million yuan, or more than 100 but less than 500 people threatened; Large geological disasters refer to those that cause 10 to 30 deaths (including missing persons), or direct economic losses of more than 5 million yuan but less than 10 million yuan, or more than 500 but less than 1,000 people threatened; Extra-large geological disasters refer to those that cause 30 or more deaths (including missing persons), or direct economic losses of more than 10 million yuan, or more than 1,000 people threatened. The response levels correspond as follows: a level IV defense response is initiated when the geological disaster level is small; a level III response is initiated when the geological disaster level is medium; a level II response is initiated when the geological disaster level is large; and a level I response is initiated when the geological disaster level is extremely large. Using the above-mentioned current standards for level determination ensures the standardization, authority, and regional applicability of disaster level definitions, providing a precise basis for subsequent expert coordination and resource allocation.

[0027] Furthermore, the rating indicators can be standardized by using the entropy weight method to calculate the weights of each expert rating indicator. After obtaining the weights of each rating indicator, a scoring model can be constructed, and experts can be divided into four levels based on their scores.

[0028] The original data matrix is ​​represented as: R = (r ij ) m×n In the formula, R is the original data matrix, m is the number of evaluation indicators, n is the number of evaluation objects, and r is the number of evaluation indicators. ijThe data represents the indicators; i = 1, 2, 3, ..., m; j = 1, 2, 3, ..., n; where m = 6, corresponding to five indicators: expert title score, distance from the disaster site, historical disaster relief days, number of landslides handled, number of collapses handled, and number of debris flows handled; n is the total number of experts in the expert database. The expert title score can be determined according to preset rules, for example, a score of 40 for junior titles, 60 for intermediate titles, 70 for associate senior titles, and 80 for senior titles. Expert title scores range from 40 to 80.

[0029] The formula for standardizing the indicators is as follows: For positive indicators, the formula is as follows: ; For inverse indicators, the formula is as follows: In the formula, The data is standardized for positive indicators. For the data after standardization of the inverse index, min(r) ij ) represents the minimum value of all expert data under the i-th indicator, max(r) ij ) represents the maximum value of all expert data under the i-th indicator.

[0030] The steps for calculating the index weights using the entropy weight method are as follows: (1) Calculate the proportion of the j-th expert under the i-th indicator, where For the standardized data corresponding to the indicators, P ij Let P be the proportion of the j-th evaluation object under the i-th indicator to that indicator. ij When =0, ; (2) Calculate the entropy of the i-th index, where k is the normalization coefficient; (3) Calculate the weight W of the i-th indicator. i The expert's final score is F. Furthermore, experts are divided into four levels based on their scores: Level 1 is 0.9 or higher, Level 2 is 0.8 to 0.9 (excluding 0.9), Level 3 is 0.7 to 0.8 (excluding 0.8), and Level 4 is 0 to 0.7 (excluding 0.7).

[0031] The division into four levels is based entirely on the scores calculated by the expert scheduling and rating rules. The scores directly correspond to the strength of the expert's comprehensive adaptation ability. The ability characteristics of experts at each level are highly consistent with the contribution of the indicators behind the scores, ensuring that the rating results objectively reflect the real-time adaptation value of the experts.

[0032] Among them, Level 1 experts (score ≥ 0.9) excel in core indicators such as historical disaster relief days and number of times they have handled various types of disasters, demonstrating the strongest comprehensive adaptability. They typically possess rich experience in handling major disasters, can lead complex scenarios, and have core strength in judgment and coordination. Level 2 experts (score 0.8-0.9) primarily rely on stable disaster response experience and strong professional capabilities, with adaptability second only to Level 1 experts. They can independently undertake medium-to-high-difficulty disaster response tasks and serve as a core force in assisting Level 1 experts during major disasters. Level 3 experts (score 0.7-0.8) meet the adaptability requirements of basic professional capabilities and practical experience, and can independently complete hazard investigation, risk assessment, and basic response work for routine disasters, forming the main force in general disaster prevention. Level 4 experts (score < 0.7) have insufficient accumulation in some indicators (such as the number of disaster responses and disaster relief days), resulting in weaker comprehensive adaptability. They need to conduct auxiliary work under the guidance of higher-level experts, and their score improvement mainly focuses on accumulating practical experience indicators.

[0033] Specifically, in step S120, the preset matching rule refers to a logic based on the correspondence of "disaster level - response level - expert level," using the expert score as the core matching criterion to achieve precise matching between expert resources and disaster response needs. This ensures that technical support capabilities match the scale and complexity of the disaster. Specifically: experts rated Level 1 (score ≥ 0.9) are matched with Level 1 defense response events (corresponding to extra-large geological disasters); experts rated Level 2 (score 0.8-0.9) are matched with Level 2 defense response events (corresponding to large geological disasters); experts rated Level 3 (score 0.7-0.8) are matched with Level 3 defense response events (corresponding to medium-sized geological disasters); and experts rated Level 4 (score < 0.7) are matched with Level 4 defense response events (corresponding to small geological disasters). The core logic of this rule is that higher-level disasters require higher comprehensive matching capabilities from experts, necessitating the matching of experts with higher scores and better performance indicators. Simultaneously, it avoids wasting high-scoring expert resources on low-difficulty disasters, maximizing the efficiency of expert resource allocation. In response to special circumstances such as insufficient number of experts and complex disaster types, the matching rules are set up with a flexible supplementation mechanism. The priority of supplementation is still based on the score ranking to ensure that the adaptability of emergency response is not reduced.

[0034] Specifically, in step S130, the experts to be dispatched to the disaster site are determined based on the matching of the experts' registration information with the current geological disaster type. This specifically refers to: Expert registration information can include the expert's name, types of geological hazards they specialize in, number of days spent on disaster relief in the past, number of times they have handled landslides, collapses, and debris flows. The types of geological hazards they specialize in must be clearly marked as one or more of the following: landslides, collapses, debris flows, or mixed types (capable of handling multiple types of hazards simultaneously). When marking their specialization, they should also provide a sub-category of their specialty (e.g., landslides can be marked as soil landslides or rock landslides, and debris flows can be marked as valley debris flows or slope debris flows, etc.) to facilitate accurate matching to specific types of hazards.

[0035] Furthermore, if among the designated number of experts, there is one whose expertise in a specific geological hazard type perfectly matches the current geological hazard type (including sub-fields), that expert will be prioritized for deployment. If multiple matching experts exist, they will be selected based on their scores from highest to lowest. If the number of perfectly matching experts exceeds the required number of personnel, the corresponding number of experts will be selected based on their scores, and the remaining matching experts will be added to a reserve list for unforeseen on-site needs. If none of the designated number of experts has expertise in a specific geological hazard type that matches the current geological hazard type, priority will be given to experts specializing in comprehensive disasters. Based on the level of the defense and response event, the number of experts selected will be determined according to their scores from highest to lowest, ensuring that the overall adaptability of the team meets the standards.

[0036] Furthermore, the standard for the size of the expert group corresponding to different levels of response events can be as follows: For Level IV defense response events (small-scale disasters), a 1-2 person expert group should be formed, only needing to meet the basic requirements of hazard investigation and risk assessment. For Level III defense response events (medium-scale disasters), a 2-3 person expert group should be formed, taking into account both hazard assessment and basic response work. For Level II defense response events (large-scale disasters), a 3-5 person expert group should be formed, covering the entire process of hazard investigation, scheme design, and on-site implementation. For Level I defense response events (extremely large-scale disasters), a 5-7 person expert group should be formed, possessing multi-dimensional collaborative response and emergency command capabilities. Simultaneously, regardless of the matching scenario, the expert group formation must ensure that at least one expert with qualified on-site command experience (judged by the number of times they have served as the on-site leader in historical disaster response) provides command and guidance, ensuring the efficiency of team collaborative response. In addition, if a selected expert is unable to be on duty due to unforeseen personal circumstances, a replacement will be automatically selected from the reserve list according to score ranking. After the replacement, the dispatch plan will be updated simultaneously and relevant personnel will be notified immediately.

[0037] Specifically, in step S140, the on-site work logs filled out by the selected experts after they arrived at the disaster site are obtained in real time. Combined with the updated geological disaster information, a comprehensive assessment is made as to whether the task termination conditions have been met. Specifically, this means: The on-site work log submitted by experts can include: the location of the disaster site, the type of hazard, the risk level, the response measures, on-site image data, and the progress of the work at each stage. The location of the disaster site must be accurate to latitude and longitude, and the administrative division, topography (e.g., mountains, hills, valleys), and surrounding key landmarks (e.g., roads, bridges, residential areas) must be simultaneously indicated. The type of hazard must be consistent with the current geological hazard type. For landslides, soil / rock type and bedding / cut-bedding properties must be indicated; for collapses, lithology and collapse scale must be indicated; for debris flows, valley / slope type and source type must be indicated, along with the hazard development stage (e.g., initial stage, active stage, stable stage). The risk level must be dynamically updated based on the on-site investigation results, and the basis for the judgment (e.g., slope displacement rate, crack development, rainfall, etc.) must be explained simultaneously. The affected area must indicate the number of people threatened, the number of houses, and the names of important facilities. The disposal measures must be documented in detail, including the technical solutions, implementation process, and effects. The solution design must explain the technical basis, core disposal approach, and expected goals. The implementation process must record the construction time, equipment and personnel involved, and key operational steps. Effect verification must compare the state of the hazard before and after disposal, explaining whether the expected results were achieved. If the results were not achieved, supplementary rectification measures and cause analysis are required. On-site video data must include the overall disaster overview, details of the hazard points, and the disposal process. Panoramic images must clearly show the overall disaster area and surrounding environment. Detailed images must focus on the core areas of the hazard (such as cracks and loose slope sections). Process images must record key disposal steps. All images must include the shooting time, latitude, and longitude information. Progress reports must be submitted on a half-day or full-day basis, clearly specifying completed work, incomplete work, existing problems, and the next steps. Data-related content must be accurate to specific values ​​to ensure the entire work process is traceable and verifiable.

[0038] The time limit for submitting work logs can be as follows: for Level 4 defense response events, experts should complete the first submission within 4 hours of arriving at the scene, and then submit at least once a day thereafter; for Level 3 and below defense response events, experts should complete the first submission within 2 hours of arriving at the scene, and then submit once every 4 hours thereafter. In case of emergencies or special circumstances, submissions must be made immediately.

[0039] The conditions for stopping the mission must simultaneously meet the following six core elements, none of which can be omitted: First, the hazard mitigation at the disaster site must achieve the preset effectiveness, the hazard points must be in a stable state, and there must be no trend of further development or expansion. Second, there must be no new signs of danger such as cracks, slope loosening, or debris flow recharge at the site, and real-time monitoring data (such as slope displacement, soil moisture content, groundwater level, etc.) must be within the safe threshold range for 24 consecutive hours. Third, temporary control measures must fully cover all dangerous areas, the control measures must be implemented effectively and operate normally, and there must be no blind spots in control. Fourth, all threatened personnel must have been transferred to safe resettlement sites, the resettlement situation must be stable, and there must be no risk of personnel returning. Fifth, the meteorological risk level for geological disasters issued by the meteorological department must be reduced to low risk or below, and there must be no adverse meteorological conditions such as heavy rainfall or strong winds within the next 48 hours. Sixth, the corresponding level of geological disaster warning must be officially lifted, and the emergency management department must issue a warning lifting notice.

[0040] The pre-set effectiveness targets need to be clearly defined according to the type and level of the disaster. For example, for landslide disasters, it is necessary to ensure slope stability and unobstructed drainage systems; for debris flow disasters, it is necessary to remove accumulated debris and reinforce protective works. Temporary control measures include setting up warning signs, demarcating warning areas, and assigning dedicated personnel to be on duty. The meteorological risk level refers to the geological disaster meteorological risk warning level issued by the meteorological department. Low risk and below are defined as no warning or a blue warning.

[0041] The assessment process can be conducted by an expert dispatch system combining on-site work logs, real-time monitoring data (such as slope displacement and rainfall), and meteorological early warning information. If necessary, online consultations with selected experts can be organized to formulate assessment opinions. Once the conditions for mission termination are confirmed, a mission termination order is issued. After mission termination, all assessment materials, work logs, and monitoring data are archived to form a complete closed-loop management file, providing a basis for subsequent disaster review and dispatch optimization.

[0042] Specifically, in step S150, based on the on-site work log at the time the task stopped, the evaluation indicators of the selected experts, excluding the distance from the disaster site, are numerically accumulated, the ratings of the selected experts are recalculated, and the ratings of the selected experts in the expert database are updated a second time. Specifically, this means: After the task is completed, the system automatically extracts information such as working hours, disaster type and number of times from the on-site work log, and accumulates and updates the indicators of historical disaster relief days, number of landslides dealt with, number of collapses dealt with, and number of debris flows dealt with. Among them, the distance from the disaster site is an "instant adaptability indicator" and is only used for the first rating before the current dispatch. It reflects the geographical adaptability of the expert's participation in the current dispatch and is not included in the long-term performance indicator accumulation of the expert. After each dispatch, the data of this indicator is automatically archived to the current dispatch file and does not affect the basic rating data of the expert in the expert database.

[0043] After the indicators are updated, the expert scores and grades are recalculated using the aforementioned expert scheduling and rating rules to ensure the consistency and objectivity of the rating standards and avoid rating distortion caused by double standards. Following the completion of the second rating update, the expert rating information in the expert database is updated simultaneously to provide more valuable talent matching data for subsequent geological disaster prevention expert scheduling.

[0044] As described above, the process involves determining the disaster level based on geological disaster information and current standards, requesting the activation of a corresponding defense response, and obtaining real-time location information of experts after approval. The expert ratings are then updated for the first time according to a scheduling rating rule that includes five indicators, such as distance from the disaster site. Next, a predetermined number of experts with the corresponding rating are retrieved according to a preset matching rule, and the selected experts are determined by combining their registration information with the disaster type matching degree. Then, the experts' on-site work logs are obtained in real time, and the task termination conditions are determined based on the updated disaster information. Finally, after the task is terminated, the expert evaluation index values ​​are accumulated, the rating is recalculated, and the expert database is updated a second time. Implementing this method enables dynamic adjustment of expert ratings, solving the problems of fixed expert ratings and poor scheduling timeliness in existing technologies. By prioritizing the matching of disaster types with experts' areas of expertise, the accuracy of expert selection is improved, ensuring that expert resources are adapted to disaster response needs, improving the emergency response efficiency of geological disaster prevention, and reducing the risk of disaster losses due to improper expert scheduling.

[0045] refer to Figure 2 This application also provides an expert scheduling apparatus 200 for implementing the expert scheduling method 100 according to the embodiments of this application. The expert scheduling apparatus 200 includes a processor 210 and a memory 220. The expert scheduling apparatus 200 may include one or more processors 210 and one or more memories 220. The memory 220 stores an executable program executed by the processor 210. When the executable program is executed by the processor 210, it causes the processor 210 to execute the expert scheduling method 100 described above according to the embodiments of this application.

[0046] The processor 210 may be a central processing unit (CPU) or other processing units with data processing capabilities and / or instruction execution capabilities.

[0047] The memory 220 may include one or more computer program products, which may include various forms of computer-readable storage media, such as volatile memory and / or non-volatile memory. The volatile memory may include, for example, random access memory (RAM) and / or cache memory. The non-volatile memory may include, for example, read-only memory (ROM), hard disk, flash memory, etc. One or more computer program instructions may be stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor 210 may execute the program instructions to implement the client functions (implemented by the processor) in the embodiments of this application described herein, and / or other desired functions. Various applications and various data may also be stored in the computer-readable storage medium, such as various data used and / or generated by the applications.

[0048] The expert scheduling device 200 may also include input and output devices, which are interconnected via a bus system and / or other forms of connection mechanisms. It should be noted that... Figure 2 The components and structure of the expert scheduling device 200 shown are merely exemplary and not limiting. The expert scheduling device 200 may also have other components and structures as needed.

[0049] The input device can be a device used by a user to input commands, and can include one or more of a keyboard, mouse, microphone, and touchscreen. Furthermore, the input device can also be any interface for receiving information.

[0050] The output device can output various information (e.g., images or sounds) to the outside (e.g., a user), and may include one or more of a display, speaker, etc. Furthermore, the output device can also be any other device with output functionality.

[0051] For example, the expert scheduling system apparatus 200 for implementing the expert scheduling method 100 according to the embodiments of this application can be applied to terminal devices (such as mobile phones), tablet computers, laptop computers, ultra-mobile personal computers (UMPCs), handheld computers, netbooks, personal digital assistants (PDAs), wearable devices (such as smartwatches, smart glasses, or smart helmets), augmented reality (AR) devices, virtual reality (VR) devices, smart home devices, in-vehicle computers, and other electronic devices. The embodiments of this application do not impose any limitations on this.

[0052] Those skilled in the art can understand the specific operation of the expert scheduling device 200 for implementing the expert scheduling method 100 according to the embodiments of this application in conjunction with the content described above. For the sake of brevity, the specific details will not be repeated here, but only some main operations of the processor 210 will be described.

[0053] In one embodiment of this application, when the executable program is run by the processor 210, the processor 210 performs the following steps: Based on geological disaster information, it determines the geological disaster level according to current standards and requests the initiation of a corresponding level of defense response event; after receiving the defense response event approval information, it requests the current expert location information from all experts registered in the expert database of the expert scheduling system, and updates the ratings of all experts in the expert database for the first time based on the current expert location and the disaster site according to preset expert scheduling rating rules; wherein, the rating indicators of the expert scheduling rating rules include distance from expert professional title score, distance from the disaster site, historical disaster relief days, number of landslides handled, number of collapses handled, and [other factors]. The system analyzes the following steps: 1. Detects the number of debris flows; 2. Retrieves a set number of experts with corresponding expert ratings determined according to preset matching rules based on the defense response event level; 3. Obtains the registration information of the set number of experts in the expert database, and determines the experts to be dispatched to the disaster site based on the matching of the experts' registration information with the current geological hazard type; 4. In real time, it obtains the on-site work logs filled out by the dispatched experts after they arrive at the disaster site, and comprehensively judges whether the task cessation conditions have been met by combining the updated geological hazard information; 5. Based on the on-site work logs at the time of task cessation, it accumulates the evaluation indicators of the dispatched experts (excluding distance from the disaster site), recalculates the ratings of the dispatched experts, and updates the ratings of the dispatched experts in the expert database for the second time.

[0054] The above exemplarily illustrates an expert scheduling method 100 according to an embodiment of this application. The following, in conjunction with... Figure 3 This application describes an expert scheduling system 300 provided in another aspect of its embodiments.

[0055] Reference Figure 3 This describes an expert scheduling system 300 used to implement embodiments of this application. The expert scheduling system 300 may include a first acquisition module 310, a first determination module 320, a second determination module 330, a first adjustment module 340, and a construction module 350. Wherein: The first acquisition module 310 is used for: determining the level of a geological disaster based on geological disaster information and current standards, and requesting the activation of a corresponding level of defense response event; after receiving the approval information for the defense response event, requesting all experts registered in the expert database of the expert dispatch system to obtain the current expert location information, and updating the rating of all experts in the expert database for the first time based on the current expert location and the disaster site according to the preset expert dispatch rating rules; wherein, the rating indicators of the expert dispatch rating rules include expert title score, distance from the disaster site, historical disaster relief days, number of landslides dealt with, number of collapses dealt with, and number of debris flows dealt with; The first determining module 320 is used to: retrieve a set number of experts with corresponding expert ratings determined according to preset matching rules based on the defense response event level; The second determining module 330 is used to: obtain the registration information of a set number of experts in the expert database, and determine the experts to be dispatched to the disaster site based on the matching of the experts' registration information with the current geological disaster type; The first adjustment module 340 is used to: obtain in real time the on-site work log filled in by the selected experts after they arrive at the disaster site to carry out their work, and combine it with the updated geological disaster information to comprehensively judge whether the task cessation conditions have been met. The construction module 350 is used to: accumulate the evaluation indicators of the selected experts (excluding the distance from the disaster site) based on the on-site work log when the task stops, recalculate the rating of the selected experts, and update the rating of the selected experts in the expert database for the second time.

[0056] The expert scheduling system 300 proposed in this application embodiment can reasonably provide a method for scheduling experts in geological disaster prevention, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of geological disaster prevention and control.

[0057] Furthermore, according to embodiments of this application, this application also provides a storage medium on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is run by a processor, it is used to execute corresponding steps of the expert scheduling method 100 of this application. The storage medium may, for example, include a memory card of a smartphone, a storage component of a tablet computer, a hard disk of a personal computer, a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a USB memory, or any combination of the above storage media. The computer-readable storage medium may be any combination of one or more computer-readable storage media.

[0058] Furthermore, according to embodiments of this application, this application also provides a computer program product, including computer instructions that, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the expert scheduling method 100 of embodiments of this application.

[0059] Although exemplary embodiments have been described herein with reference to the accompanying drawings, it should be understood that the above exemplary embodiments are merely illustrative and are not intended to limit the scope of this application. Various changes and modifications can be made therein by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of this application. All such changes and modifications are intended to be included within the scope of this application as claimed in the appended claims.

[0060] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered beyond the scope of this application.

[0061] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed devices and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the device embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For instance, the division of units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another device, or some features may be ignored or not executed.

[0062] Furthermore, those skilled in the art will understand that although some embodiments described herein include certain features but not others included in other embodiments, combinations of features from different embodiments are intended to be within the scope of this application and form different embodiments. For example, in the claims, any one of the claimed embodiments can be used in any combination.

[0063] It should be noted that the above embodiments are illustrative of this application and not restrictive, and that those skilled in the art can devise alternative embodiments without departing from the scope of the appended claims. In the claims, any reference signs placed between parentheses should not be construed as limiting the claims. The word "comprising" does not exclude the presence of elements or steps not listed in the claims. The word "a" or "an" preceding an element does not exclude the presence of a plurality of such elements. This application can be implemented by means of hardware comprising several different elements and by means of a suitably programmed computer. In the unit claims enumerating several means, several of these means may be embodied by the same item of hardware. The use of the words first, second, and third, etc., does not indicate any order. These words can be interpreted as names.

[0064] The above description is merely a specific embodiment or illustration of the embodiments of this application. The scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application. The scope of protection of this application shall be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for dispatching experts in geological disaster prevention, characterized in that, The expert scheduling method includes: Based on geological disaster information, the geological disaster level is determined according to current standards, and a corresponding level of defense response event is requested to be initiated. After receiving the approval information for the defense response event, the system requests the current location information of all experts registered in the expert database of the expert dispatch system. Based on the current expert location and the disaster site, the rating of all experts in the expert database is updated for the first time according to the pre-set expert dispatch rating rules. The rating indicators of the expert dispatch rating rules include expert title score, distance from the disaster site, number of historical disaster relief days, number of landslides dealt with, number of collapses dealt with, and number of debris flows dealt with. Based on the defense response event level, a set number of experts with corresponding expert ratings determined according to preset matching rules are retrieved. Obtain the registration information of a set number of experts in the expert database, and determine the experts to be dispatched to the disaster site based on the matching information of the experts with the current geological disaster type; The system obtains real-time field work logs filled out by selected experts after they arrive at the disaster site, and combines these logs with updated geological disaster information to comprehensively assess whether the conditions for mission termination have been met. Based on the on-site work logs at the time the mission was stopped, the evaluation indicators of the selected experts, except for the distance from the disaster site, were accumulated, the ratings of the selected experts were recalculated, and the ratings of the selected experts in the expert database were updated for the second time.

2. The expert scheduling method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The event of determining the level of a geological hazard based on current standards and requesting the activation of the corresponding level of defense response specifically refers to: Geological hazards are classified into small, medium, large, and extra-large levels, and defense response events are classified into four, three, two, and one levels. Specifically, a level four defense response event is initiated when the geological hazard level is small, a level three defense response event is initiated when the geological hazard level is medium, a level two defense response event is initiated when the geological hazard level is large, and a level one defense response event is initiated when the geological hazard level is extra-large.

3. The expert scheduling method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The expert scheduling and rating rules specifically refer to: Each rating indicator is standardized, and the entropy weight method is used to calculate the weight of each rating indicator for experts. After obtaining the weight of each rating indicator, a scoring model is constructed, and experts are divided into four levels according to their scores. R=(r ij ) m×n In the formula, R is the original data matrix, m is the number of evaluation indicators, n is the number of evaluation objects, and r is the number of evaluation indicators. ij For indicator data; i = 1 , 2, 3, ..., m ; j = 1, 2, 3, ..., n； In the formula, H i Let P be the entropy of the i-th index, k be the normalization coefficient, and P be the normalization coefficient. ij Let P be the proportion of the j-th evaluation object under the i-th indicator to that indicator. ij When =0, When the indicator data r ij When it is a positive indicator, use Calculations are performed when the indicator data is an inverse indicator. use Perform calculations; In the formula, W i Here, F represents the weight of the indicator, and F represents the expert score. i Scores are given for each evaluation indicator.

4. The expert scheduling method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The division of experts into four levels based on their scores refers to: Expert scores of 0.9 or higher are classified as Level 1, 0.8 to 0.9 as Level 2, 0.7 to 0.8 as Level 3, and 0 to 0.7 as Level 4.

5. The expert scheduling method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The preset matching rules are as follows: experts rated at level 1 are matched with level 1 defense response events, experts rated at level 2 are matched with level 2 defense response events, experts rated at level 3 are matched with level 3 defense response events, and experts rated at level 4 are matched with level 4 defense response events.

6. The expert scheduling method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The on-site work logs filled out by the experts specifically include: Location of the disaster site, type of hazard, risk level, response measures, on-site video data, and progress of the work at each stage; Experts for Level 4 defense response events must complete the report within 4 hours of arriving at the scene, while experts for Level 3 and below defense response events must complete the report within 2 hours of arriving at the scene.

7. The expert scheduling method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Real-time acquisition of on-site work logs submitted by experts, combined with updated geological hazard information, to determine whether the mission termination conditions have been met, specifically: The hazard mitigation at the disaster site has achieved the expected results, with no new signs of cracks or other hazards. Temporary control measures cover all dangerous areas, all threatened personnel have been relocated and resettled, and the meteorological risk level has been reduced to low risk or below, and the geological disaster warning has been lifted.

8. The expert scheduling method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The selection of experts to be dispatched to disaster sites is determined based on the matching of experts' registration information with the current type of geological hazard. Specifically, this means: The registration information of experts includes their names, types of geological disasters they specialize in, number of days spent on disaster relief in the past, number of times they have dealt with landslides, number of times they have dealt with collapses, and number of times they have dealt with debris flows. If among the set number of experts, there is one whose expertise in geological disaster types matches the current geological disaster type, then that expert will be selected as the dispatched expert; If none of the designated number of experts possess expertise in a geological hazard type that matches the current geological hazard type, the number of experts selected will be determined based on the defense response event level, ranked from highest to lowest according to their scores, as follows: For a Level 4 defense response event, form an expert team of 1-2 people; For a Level 3 defense response event, form an expert team of 2-3 people. For a Level 2 defense response event, form an expert team of 3-5 people; For a Level 1 defense response event, a team of 5-7 experts will be formed.

9. A geological disaster prevention expert dispatch device, characterized in that, The expert scheduling device includes: Memory is used to store executable instructions for a computer; A processor, when executing computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, implements the expert scheduling method according to any one of claims 1 to 8.

10. A storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein, The computer instructions are used to cause the computer to execute the expert scheduling method according to any one of claims 1 to 8.

Images