LCFSTE: Landslide Conditioning Factors and Swin Transformer Ensemble for Landslide Susceptibility Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landslide susceptibility assessment (LSA) holds crucial importance in guiding regional disaster prevention and reduction efforts. However, current deep learning (DL) models for LSA encounter challenges like insufficient landslide data samples and uneven distribution. In this paper, we develop a new hybrid framework named LCFSTE, which integrates landslide conditioning factors (LCFs) and Swin Transformer (Swin-T) for LSA. With this framework, we fully leverage the powerful nonlinear feature extraction capability of Swin-T to extract abstract features from both landslides and LCFs. This approach ultimately enhances the precision and reliability of LSA. To assess the performance of our newly proposed framework, we selected Jiuzhaigou County, China, as our study area. Firstly, a dataset for LSA was constructed using historical landslide data and 11 multi-source LCFs. Then, these factors were screened through multicollinearity test and factor importance analysis using variance inflation factors, tolerance, and information gain rate. Subsequently, the dataset was divided into three subsets: 60% for training, 20% for validation and 20% for testing. Then, the LSA results were compared with four DL models. Seven evaluation metrics (EMs) are chosen to quantitatively evaluate the performance of these five LSA models. The results demonstrated that, among these seven EMs, LCFSTE outperformed the others, achieving the highest score in six out of the seven considered EMs. This outcome highlights the promising applicability of LCFSTE in enhancing LSA accuracy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".