MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408061874 · doi:10.3390/app15052613

Landslide Recognition Based on DeepLabv3+ Framework Fusing ResNet101 and ECA Attention Mechanism

2025· article· en· W4408061874 on OpenAlexaff
Xinfang Chen, Shiwei Wang, Venkata Dinavahi, Lijia Yang, Donghai Wu, M. Ray Smith and Hwan Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMechanism (biology)LandslideGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A landslide is one of the most common geological disasters, which is associated with great destructive power and harm. In recent years, semantic segmentation models have been applied to landslide recognition research and have made some achievements. However, the current method still has issues, overlooking small targets like fine cracks, missegmenting boundaries, and struggling to differentiate spectral signatures such as those of different rock types in landslide-prone areas. In this paper, a landslide detection model based on the DeepLabv3+ framework, DeepLabv3+-ResNet101-ECA, is proposed. The backbone feature extraction network of DeepLabv3+ is replaced with ResNet101 to enhance the feature extraction ability of the model for small objects. The ECA attention mechanism is integrated into the model to improve the accuracy of the object segmentation and improve the detection accuracy. Taking the landslide in Bijie City, Guizhou Province, as the research object, compared with the original DeepLabv3+ model, the precision of DeepLabv3+-ResNet101-ECA is increased by 1.17%, the recall rate is increased by 2%, the F1 score is increased by 0.96%, and the MIou is increased by 2.36%. Finally, transfer learning is used to verify the generalization ability of the model. The results show that the improved model has a better detection effect on landslides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207