Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using Machine Learning Algorithms and Remote Sensing Data in a Tropical Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used AdaBoost (AB), alternating decision tree (ADTree), and their combination as an ensemble model (AB-ADTree) to spatially predict landslides in the Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. The models were trained with a database of 152 landslides compiled using Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry, Google Earth images, and field surveys, and 17 conditioning factors (slope, aspect, elevation, distance to road, distance to river, proximity to fault, road density, river density, normalized difference vegetation index, rainfall, land cover, lithology, soil types, curvature, profile curvature, stream power index, and topographic wetness index). We carried out the validation process using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and several parametric and non-parametric performance metrics, including positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, root mean square error, and the Friedman and Wilcoxon sign rank tests. The AB model (AUC = 0.96) performed better than the ensemble AB-ADTree model (AUC = 0.94) and successfully outperformed the ADTree model (AUC = 0.59) in predicting landslide susceptibility. Our findings provide insights into the development of more efficient and accurate landslide predictive models that can be used by decision makers and land-use managers to mitigate landslide hazards.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".