MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183537341 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-94266-6

A multi-hazard map-based flooding, gully erosion, forest fires, and earthquakes in Iran

2021· article· en· W3183537341 on OpenAlexaff
Soheila Pouyan, Hamid Reza Pourghasemi, Mojgan Bordbar, Soroor Rahmanian, John J. Clague

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCollege of Agriculture, Shiraz UniversityShiraz University
KeywordsRandom forestFlooding (psychology)HazardErosionHazard mapEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)GeologyLandslideSeismologyGeomorphologyComputer scienceMachine learningGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used three state-of-the-art machine learning techniques (boosted regression tree, random forest, and support vector machine) to produce a multi-hazard (MHR) map illustrating areas susceptible to flooding, gully erosion, forest fires, and earthquakes in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran. The earthquake hazard map was derived from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The mean decrease Gini (MDG) method was implemented to determine the relative importance of effective factors on the spatial occurrence of each of the four hazards. Area under the curve (AUC) plots, based on a validation dataset, were created for the maps generated using the three algorithms to compare the results. The random forest model had the highest predictive accuracy, with AUC values of 0.994, 0.982, and 0.885 for gully erosion, flooding, and forest fires, respectively. Approximately 41%, 40%, 28%, and 3% of the study area are at risk of forest fires, earthquakes, floods, and gully erosion, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations76
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207