Comparative Study of Deep Neural Networks for Landslide Susceptibility Assessment: A Case Study of Pyeongchang-gun, South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With an increase in local precipitation caused by extreme climatic phenomena, the frequency of landslides and associated damage has also increased. Therefore, compiling fine-scale landslide susceptibility assessment maps based on data from landslide-affected areas is essential. Deep neural network (DNN) and kernel-based DNN(DNNK) models were used to prepare landslide susceptibility maps of the mountainous Pyeongchang-gun region (South Korea) within a geographic information system framework. To map landslide susceptibility, datasets of landslide occurrence areas, topography, land use, forest, and soil were collected and entered into spatial databases, and 18 factors were then selected from the databases and used as model inputs. The training and test datasets consisted of 1600 and 400 landslide locations, respectively. The test accuracies of the DNN and DNNK models were 98.19% and 97.53% and 94.11% and 92.22% for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the average precision value of the precision-recall curve, respectively. The location of future landslides can now be quickly and efficiently predicted using remote sensing data at a lower cost and with less labor. The landslide susceptibility maps produced in this study can play a role in sustainability and serve as references for establishing policies for landslide prevention and mitigation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".