MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407722371 · doi:10.3390/rs17040727

Improved Landslide Deformation Prediction Using Convolutional Neural Network–Gated Recurrent Unit and Spatial–Temporal Data

2025· article· en· W4407722371 on OpenAlexaff
Honglei Yang, Youfeng Liu, Qing‐Long Han, Linlin Xu, Tianyu Zhang, Zeping Wang, Ao Yan, Songxue Zhao, Jianfeng Han, Yuedong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkLandslideComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the major forms of geological disaster, landslides cause huge casualties and economic losses in China every year. Given the importance of landslide prediction, it is a challenging task due to difficulties in efficiently leveraging the spatial–temporal information for enhanced prediction. This paper presents a novel spatial–temporal enhanced CNN-GRU model to improve landslide predictions with the following contributions. First, this paper explicitly models the spatial correlation in the dataset and constructs a spatial–temporal time-sequence deformation prediction model that greatly improves landslide predictions. This model integrates the spatial correlation of monitoring points into time-series deformation prediction to improve the prediction of landslide deformation trends. Second, we develop a complete data processing pipeline involving SBAS-InSAR, time-series data preprocessing, spatial–temporal homogeneous point selection and weighting, as well as CNN-GRU model training. The pipeline is tailor-designed to leverage the spatial–temporal correlation in the data to enhance the prediction performance. Third, we apply the proposed model to monitor landslide deformation around Woda Village, Chamdo City, Tibet. The results show that the root mean square error (RMSE) of the monitoring points in the landslide area is reduced by about 20.9% and the number of points with an RMSE of less than 3 mm is increased by 12.9%, leading to a significant improvement in prediction 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207