Assessing the quality of landslide susceptibility maps – case study Lower Austria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Landslide susceptibility maps are helpful tools to identify areas potentially prone to future landslide occurrence. As more and more national and provincial authorities demand for these maps to be computed and implemented in spatial planning strategies, several aspects of the quality of the landslide susceptibility model and the resulting classified map are of high interest. In this study of landslides in Lower Austria, we focus on the model form uncertainty to assess the quality of a flexible statistical modelling technique, the generalized additive model (GAM). The study area (15 850 km2) is divided into 16 modelling domains based on lithology classes. A model representing the entire study area is constructed by combining these models. The performances of the models are assessed using repeated k-fold cross-validation with spatial and random subsampling. This reflects the variability of performance estimates arising from sampling variation. Measures of spatial transferability and thematic consistency are applied to empirically assess model quality. We also analyse and visualize the implications of spatially varying prediction uncertainties regarding the susceptibility map classes by taking into account the confidence intervals of model predictions. The 95% confidence limits fall within the same susceptibility class in 85% of the study area. Overall, this study contributes to advancing open communication and assessment of model quality related to statistical landslide susceptibility models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".