MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029457533 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v2n3p43

Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using Multiple Regression and GIS Tools in Tajan Basin, North of Iran

2012· article· en· W2029457533 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Somayeh Mashari, Karim Solaimani, Ebrahim Omidvar

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideLandformNatural hazardDrainage densityHazardGeologyWeightingFault (geology)DrainageStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeomorphologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landslide is a natural hazard that causes many damages to the environment. Depending on the landform, several factors can cause the Landslide. This research addresses the methodology for landslide susceptibility mapping using multiple regression analysis and GIS tools. Based on the initial hypothesis, ten factors were recognized as effectual elements on landslide, which is geology, slope, aspect, distance from roads, faults and drainage network, soil capability, land use and rainfall. Crossing investigated parameters with the observed landslides indicated that three factor including distance from channel network, distance from fault and rainfall have no major effect on observed landslide in Tajan area. In order to quantifying the parameters in the form of weighting factors, the coverage of landslides in different observation was determined. Then Stepwise method was used for statistical analysis. It was found that slope, aspect, distance from the roads and soil capability are as most effective factors in landslide respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207