MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315750697 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2022-0365

Predicting geological interfaces using stacking ensemble learning with multi-scale features

2023· article· en· W4315750697 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ze Zhou Wang, Yue Hu, Xiangfeng Guo, Xiaogang He, Hardy Yide Kek, Taeseo Ku, C.F. Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation SingaporeNemzeti Fejlesztési MinisztériumNational Research FoundationStrong
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer scienceScale (ratio)Data miningProcess (computing)BoreholeMachine learningEnsemble learningBase (topology)Variation (astronomy)Sampling (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsImage (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the variation of geological interfaces plays a crucial role in the analysis and design of infrastructure systems. Generally, there are two classes of techniques for predicting geological interfaces, for example, interpolation/regression-based techniques and machine-learning-based techniques. In this paper, a Multi-scale Meta-learning Model (M 3 ) methodology is proposed. The new methodology improves the current state-of-the-art techniques by fusing two levels of information: (i) generic characteristics of the sampling locations, for example, coordinates, and (ii) location-specific characteristics, for example, local-scale predictions. The implementation starts from using an array of classic interpolation/regression-based techniques as base learners to provide first-level predictions at a local scale. These predictions are then combined with generic characteristics to train a meta-learner following the stacking ensemble learning framework. In this manner, the location-specific information from the base learners can be simultaneously considered with the generic information in the training process. The variation of rockhead elevation is predicted using the M 3 methodology and a comprehensive borehole dataset in Singapore. A detailed comparative study involving several existing methods is also carried out to rigorously validate the M 3 methodology. The results show that the M 3 methodology achieves 20% improvement in the model performance compared to existing methods, indicating its promising potential in geotechnical site characterization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations42
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207