Performance Assessment of Individual and Ensemble Learning Models for Gully Erosion Susceptibility Mapping in a Mountainous and Semi-Arid Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-accuracy gully erosion susceptibility maps play a crucial role in erosion vulnerability assessment and risk management. The principal purpose of the present research is to evaluate the predictive power of individual machine learning models such as random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), and support vector machine (SVM), and ensemble machine learning approaches such as stacking, voting, bagging, and boosting with k-fold cross validation resampling techniques for modeling gully erosion susceptibility in the Oued El Abid watershed in the Moroccan High Atlas. A dataset comprising 200 gully points, identified through field observations and high-resolution Google Earth imagery, was used, alongside 21 gully erosion conditioning factors selected based on their importance, information gain, and multi-collinearity analysis. The exploratory results indicate that all derived gully erosion susceptibility maps had a good accuracy for both individual and ensemble models. Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC), the RF and the SVM models had better predictive performances, with AUC = 0.82, than the DT model. However, ensemble models significantly outperformed individual models. Among the ensembles, the RF-DT-SVM stacking model achieved the highest predictive accuracy, with an AUC value of 0.86, highlighting its robustness and superior predictive capability. The prioritization results also confirmed the RF-DT-SVM ensemble model as the best. These findings highlight the superiority of ensemble learning models over individual ones and underscore their potential for application in similar geo-environmental contexts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".