MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198937222 · doi:10.2495/risk080041

Occurrence neighbourhoods and risk assessment from landslide hazard in northern Spain

2008· article· en· W2198937222 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea G. Fabbri, Juan Remondo, Cristiano Ballabio, S. Poli, C. F. Chung, H.J. Scholten

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on information and communication technologies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsThematic mapHazardLandslideComputer scienceBoundary (topology)CartographyGeographyGeologyMathematicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This contribution analyzes the problem of selecting the desirable characteristics of a study area when using geo-information for natural risk assessment. Shape, boundary, density of detail of the study area and the distribution of hazardous occurrences can be fundamental in conditioning the estimation of values in a map of expected risk. A study area in the Basque Country of northern Spain is used in which previous studies produced maps of risks for linear infrastructures, land uses and buildings, from thousands of shallow translational landslides. The area is reconsidered here in terms of five telescopic sub-areas corresponding to different neighbourhoods of the landslide occurrences. The results of the corresponding hazard predictions are interpreted via prediction-rate tables and curves obtained from blind tests, i.e., prediction maps obtained using only part of the occurrences cross-validated with the distribution of the remaining occurrences. The subsequent introduction of socioeconomic thematic maps and scenarios enables the derivation of risk maps based on the prediction rates, the hazard maps and the socioeconomic indicator values. The comparison of the risk maps from the different study-area datasets is used to assess their impact on risk values and to provide guidance on how to perform the selection maintaining greater significance. A critical issue is the loss of significance when reducing study area neighbourhoods closer or further away from the hazardous locations. The application is an example of a general purpose spatial predictive modelling processing strategy for which dedicated software has been developed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on information and communication technologiesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207