Head-cut gully erosion susceptibility mapping in semi-arid region using machine learning methods: insight from the high atlas, Morocco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gully erosion has been identified in recent decades as a global threat to people and property. This problem also affects the socioeconomic stability of societies and therefore limits their sustainable development, as it impacts a nonrenewable resource on a human scale, namely, soil. The focus of this study is to evaluate the prediction performance of four machine learning (ML) models: Logistic Regression (LR), classification and regression tree (CART), Linear Discriminate Analysis (LDA), and the k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), which are novel approaches in gully erosion modeling research, particularly in semi-arid regions with a mountainous character. 204 samples of erosion areas and 204 samples of non-erosion areas were collected through field surveys and high-resolution satellite images, and 17 significant factors were considered. The dataset cells of samples (70% for training and 30% for testing) were randomly prepared to assess the robustness of the different models. The functional relevance between soil erosion and effective factors was computed using the ML models. The ML models were evaluated using different metrics, including accuracy, the kappa coefficient. kNN is the ideal model for this study. The value of the AUC from ROC considering the testing datasets of KNN is 0.93; the remaining models are associated to ideal AUC and are similar to kNN in terms of values. The AUC values from ROC of GLM, LDA, and CART for testing datasets are 0.90, 0.91, and 0.84, respectively. The value of accuracy considering the validation datasets of LDA, CART, KNN, and GLM are 0.85, 0.82, 0.89, 0.84 respectively. The values of Kappa of LDA, CART, and GLM for testing datasets are 0.70, 0.65, and 0.68, respectively. ML models, in particular KNN, GLM, and LDA, have achieved outstanding results in terms of creating soil erosion susceptibility maps. The maps created with the most reliable models could be a useful tool for sustainable management, watershed conservation and prevention of soil and water losses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".