Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using GIS-Based Data Mining Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to apply data mining algorithms to produce a landslide susceptibility map of the national-scale catchment called Bandar Torkaman in northern Iran. As it was impossible to directly use the advanced data mining methods due to the volume of data at this scale, an intermediate approach, called normalized frequency-ratio unique condition units (NFUC), was devised to reduce the data volume. With the aid of this technique, different data mining algorithms such as fuzzy gamma (FG), binary logistic regression (BLR), backpropagation artificial neural network (BPANN), support vector machine (SVM), and C5 decision tree (C5DT) were employed. The success and prediction rates of the models, which were calculated by receiver operating characteristic curve, were 0.859 and 0.842 for FG, 0.887 and 0.855 for BLR, 0.893 and 0.856 for C5DT, 0.891 and 0.875 for SVM, and 0.896 and 0.872 for BPANN that showed the highest validation rates as compared with the other methods. The proposed approach of NFUC proved highly efficient in data volume reduction, and therefore the application of computationally demanding algorithms for large areas with voluminous data was feasible.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".