A Hybrid Computational Intelligence Approach to Groundwater Spring Potential Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes a hybrid computational intelligence model that is a combination of alternating decision tree (ADTree) classifier and AdaBoost (AB) ensemble, namely “AB–ADTree”, for groundwater spring potential mapping (GSPM) at the Chilgazi watershed in the Kurdistan province, Iran. Although ADTree and its ensembles have been widely used for environmental and ecological modeling, they have rarely been applied to GSPM. To that end, a groundwater spring inventory map and thirteen conditioning factors tested by the chi-square attribute evaluation (CSAE) technique were used to generate training and testing datasets for constructing and validating the proposed model. The performance of the proposed model was evaluated using statistical-index-based measures, such as positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity accuracy, root mean square error (RMSE), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUROC). The proposed hybrid model was also compared with five state-of-the-art benchmark soft computing models, including single ADTree, support vector machine (SVM), stochastic gradient descent (SGD), logistic model tree (LMT), logistic regression (LR), and random forest (RF). Results indicate that the proposed hybrid model significantly improved the predictive capability of the ADTree-based classifier (AUROC = 0.789). In addition, it was found that the hybrid model, AB–ADTree, (AUROC = 0.815), had the highest goodness-of-fit and prediction accuracy, followed by the LMT (AUROC = 0.803), RF (AUC = 0.803), SGD, and SVM (AUROC = 0.790) models. Indeed, this model is a powerful and robust technique for mapping of groundwater spring potential in the study area. Therefore, the proposed model is a promising tool to help planners, decision makers, managers, and governments in the management and planning of groundwater resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".