MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971060441 · doi:10.3390/f10090743

New Ensemble Models for Shallow Landslide Susceptibility Modeling in a Semi-Arid Watershed

2019· article· en· W2971060441 on OpenAlexaff
Dieu Tien Bui, Ataollah Shirzadi, Himan Shahabi, Marten Geertsema, Ebrahim Omidvar, John J. Clague, Binh Thai Pham, Jie Dou, Dawood Talebpour Asl, Baharin Bin Ahmad, Saro Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMinistry of Forests
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaKorea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources
KeywordsSupport vector machineRandom forestAdaBoostSubspace topologyArtificial intelligenceLandslideComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)WatershedStatisticsEnsemble forecastingReceiver operating characteristicEnsemble learningMathematicsMachine learningGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prepared a landslide susceptibility map for the Sarkhoon watershed, Chaharmahal-w-bakhtiari, Iran, using novel ensemble artificial intelligence approaches. A classifier of support vector machine (SVM) was employed as a base classifier, and four Meta/ensemble classifiers, including Adaboost (AB), bagging (BA), rotation forest (RF), and random subspace (RS), were used to construct new ensemble models. SVM has been used previously to spatially predict landslides, but not together with its ensembles. We selected 20 conditioning factors and randomly portioned 98 landslide locations into training (70%) and validating (30%) groups. Several statistical metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, kappa, root mean square error (RMSE), and area under the receiver operatic characteristic curve (AUC), were used for model comparison and validation. Using the One-R Attribute Evaluation (ORAE) technique, we found that all 20 conditioning factors were significant in identifying landslide locations, but “distance to road” was found to be the most important. The RS (AUC = 0.837) and RF (AUC = 0.834) significantly improved the goodness-of-fit and prediction accuracy of the SVM (AUC = 0.810), whereas the BA (AUC = 0.807) and AB (AUC = 0.779) did not. The random subspace based support vector machine (RSSVM) model is a promising technique for helping to better manage land in landslide-prone areas.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations126
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207