Modelling desertification risk in the north-west of Jordan using geospatial and remote sensing techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote sensing, climate, and ground data were used within a geographic information system (GIS) to map desertification risk in the north-west of Jordan. The approach was based on modelling wind and water erosion and incorporating the results with a map representing the severity of drought. Water erosion was modelled by the universal soil loss equation, while wind erosion was modelled by a dust emission model. The extent of drought was mapped using the evapotranspiration water stress index (EWSI) which incorporated actual and potential evapotranspiration. Output maps were assessed within GIS in terms of spatial patterns and the degree of correlation with soil surficial properties. Results showed that both topography and soil explained 75% of the variation in water erosion, while soil explained 25% of the variation in wind erosion, which was mainly controlled by natural factors of topography and wind. Analysis of the EWSI map showed that drought risk was dominating most of the rainfed areas. The combined effects of soil erosion and drought were reflected on the desertification risk map. The adoption of these geospatial and remote sensing techniques is, therefore, recommended to map desertification risk in Jordan and in similar arid environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".