Shallow Landslide Susceptibility Mapping by Random Forest Base Classifier and Its Ensembles in a Semi-Arid Region of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We generated high-quality shallow landslide susceptibility maps for Bijar County, Kurdistan Province, Iran, using Random Forest (RAF), an ensemble computational intelligence method and three meta classifiers—Bagging (BA, BA-RAF), Random Subspace (RS, RS-RAF), and Rotation Forest (RF, RF-RAF). Modeling and validation were done on 111 shallow landslide locations using 20 conditioning factors tested by the Information Gain Ratio (IGR) technique. We assessed model performance with statistically based indexes, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, kappa, root mean square error (RMSE), and area under the receiver operatic characteristic curve (AUC). All four machine learning models that we tested yielded excellent goodness-of-fit and prediction accuracy, but the RF-RAF ensemble model (AUC = 0.936) outperformed the BA-RAF, RS-RAF (AUC = 0.907), and RAF (AUC = 0.812) models. The results also show that the Random Forest model significantly improved the predictive capability of the RAF-based classifier and, therefore, can be considered as a useful and an effective tool in regional shallow landslide 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".