MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2544362311 · doi:10.1109/git4ndm.2013.11

Identifying Effecting Factors and Landslide Mapping of Cameron Highland Malaysia

2013· article· en· W2544362311 on OpenAlexaff
Somayeh Mollaee, Saied Pirasteh, Mohammad Firuz Ramli, Syed M. Asghar Rizvi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideLineamentMarlGeologyTectonicsLandslide classificationPopulationCartographyMining engineeringRemote sensingGeomorphologySeismologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combination of the tectonic processes and the impacts on the environment can be seen in the form of landslides. Structural features such as faults, lineaments and folds play a major role in controlling landslides. This may help to evaluate more accurate landslide mapping. The phenomena of landslides from diverse origins are very frequent in Malaysia and mainly in the region which the bed rocks are clays, sandy limestone, and marls. Due to the susceptibility of the population, the economy and the infrastructure, it is necessary to identify locations and develop landslides maps. This study tries to express identified factors effecting landslides based on the previous works. In addition, it tries to interpret and discuss on behavior of landslide occurrence of the Cameron Highland. However, this study presents an emphasis on potential areas for landslides mapping with considering lineaments as one of the effecting for probability occurrence of landslides. Also, the usefulness of GIS technologies has made us enable to develop various maps of effecting factors. This study has identified the localization of landslides for susceptibility mapping.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→