Assessing the quality of landslide susceptibility maps – case study Lower Austria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Landslide susceptibility maps are helpful tools to identify areas which might be prone to future landslide occurrence. As more and more national and provincial authorities demand for these maps to be computed and implemented in spatial planning strategies, the quality of the landslide susceptibility map and of the model applied to compute them is of high interest. In this study we focus on the analysis of the model performance by a repeated k-fold cross-validation with spatial and random subsampling. Furthermore, the focus is on the analysis of the implications of uncertainties expressed by confidence intervals of model predictions. The cross-validation performance assessments reflects the variability of performance estimates compared to single hold-out validation approaches that produce only a single estimate. The analysis of the confidence intervals shows that in 85% of the study area, the 95% confidence limits fall within the same susceptibility class. However, there are cases where confidence intervals overlap with all classes from the lowest to the highest class of susceptibility to landsliding. Locations whose confidence intervals intersect with more than one susceptibility class are of high interest because this uncertainty may affect spatial planning processes that are based on the susceptibility level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".