MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939945347 · doi:10.3390/rs11080931

Shallow Landslide Prediction Using a Novel Hybrid Functional Machine Learning Algorithm

2019· article· en· W2939945347 on OpenAlexaff
Dieu Tien Bui, Himan Shahabi, Ebrahim Omidvar, Ataollah Shirzadi, Marten Geertsema, John J. Clague, Khabat Khosravi, Biswajeet Pradhan, Binh Thai Pham, Kamran Chapi, Zahra Barati, Baharin Bin Ahmad, Hosein Rahmani, Gyula Gróf, Saro Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMinistry of Forests
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaKorea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources
KeywordsAlgorithmLandslideComputer scienceSupport vector machineMachine learningMean squared errorLogistic model treeStochastic gradient descentArtificial intelligenceLogistic regressionAdaBoostData miningStatisticsMathematicsArtificial neural networkGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a novel hybrid functional machine learning algorithm to predict the spatial distribution of landslides in the Sarkhoon watershed, Iran. We developed a new ensemble model which is a combination of a functional algorithm, stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and an AdaBoost (AB) Meta classifier namely ABSGD model to predict the landslides. The model incorporates 20 landslide conditioning factors, which we ranked using the least-square support vector machine (LSSVM) technique. For the modeling, we considered 98 landslide locations, of which 70% (79) were used for training and 30% (19) for validation processes. Model validation was performed using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the root mean square error (RMSE) and the area under the receiver operatic characteristic (AUC) curve. We also used soft computing benchmark models, including SGD, logistic regression (LR), logistic model tree (LMT) and functional tree (FT) algorithms for model validation and comparison. The selected conditioning factors were significant in landslide occurrence but distance to road was found to be the most important factor. The ABSGD model (AUC= 0.860) outperformed the LR (0.797), SGD (0.776), LMT (0.740) and FT (0.734) models. Our results confirm that the combined use of a functional algorithm and a Meta classifier prevents over-fitting, reduces noise and enhances the power prediction of the individual SGD algorithm for the spatial prediction of landslides.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations134
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207