Application of a Novel Hybrid Machine Learning Algorithm in Shallow Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in a Mountainous Area
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
Landslides can be a major challenge in mountainous areas that are influenced by climate and landscape changes. In this study, we propose a hybrid machine learning model based on a rotation forest (RoF) meta classifier and a random forest (RF) decision tree classifier called RoFRF for landslide prediction in a mountainous area near Kamyaran city, Kurdistan Province, Iran. We used 118 landslide locations and 25 conditioning factors from which their predictive usefulness was measured using the chi-square technique in a 10-fold cross-validation analysis. We used the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1-measure, Kappa, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to validate the performance of the proposed model compared to the Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Logistic Model Tree (LMT), Best First Tree (BFT), and RF models. The validation results demonstrated that the landslide susceptibility map produced by the hybrid model had the highest goodness-of-fit (AUC = 0.953) and higher prediction accuracy (AUC = 0.919) compared to the benchmark models. The hybrid RoFRF model proposed in this study can be used as a robust predictive model for landslide susceptibility mapping in the mountainous regions around the world.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it