Mapping Risk to Land Subsidence: Developing a Two-Level Modeling Strategy by Combining Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groundwater over-abstraction may cause land subsidence (LS), and the LS mapping suffers the subjectivity associated with expert judgment. The paper seeks to reduce the subjectivity associated with the hazard, vulnerability, and risk mapping by formulating an inclusive multiple modeling (IMM), which combines two common approaches of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) at Level 1 and artificial intelligence (AI) at Level 2. Fuzzy catastrophe scheme (FCS) is used as MCDM, and support vector machine (SVM) is employed as AI. The developed methodology is applied in Iran’s Tasuj plain, which has experienced groundwater depletion. The result highlights hotspots within the study area in terms of hazard, vulnerability, and risk. According to the receiver operating characteristic and the area under curve (AUC), significant signals are identified at both levels; however, IMM increases the modeling performance from Level 1 to Level 2, as a result of its multiple modeling capabilities. In addition, the AUC values indicate that LS in the study area is caused by intrinsic vulnerability rather than man-made hazards. Still, the hazard plays the triggering role in the risk realization.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it