MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157872803 · doi:10.5539/mas.v4n7p72

Land Suitability Evaluation Using Fuzzy Continuous Classification (A Case Study: Ziaran Region)

2010· article· en· W2157872803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Keshavarzi, Fereydoon Sarmadian, Ahmad Heidari, Mahmoud Omid

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicAnalytic hierarchy processComputer scienceLand useFuzzy setSet (abstract data type)StatisticsData miningEnvironmental scienceMathematicsOperations researchArtificial intelligenceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because conventional Boolean retrieval of soil survey data and logical models for assessing land suitability treat both spatial units and attribute value ranges as exactly specifiable quantities, they ignore the continuous nature of soil and landscape variation and uncertainties in measurement which can result in the misclassification of sites that just fail to match strictly defined requirements. The objective of this research is to apply fuzzy set theory for land suitability evaluation in Ziaran region in Qazvin province, Iran. The study area was divided into 15 land units and 9 land characteristics considered to be relevant to irrigated wheat. The weight contributions of individual characteristics to observed yield were determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The use of the fuzzy technique is helpful for land suitability evaluation and classification of continuous variation, especially in applications in which subtle differences in land characteristics are of a major interest.

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)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations68
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207