MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410358667 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2025.3570020

Quantitative Hazard Prediction of Rainfall-Induced Shallow Landslides Considering Triggering and Predisposing Factors: A Case of Natural Terrain Landslides in Hong Kong

2025· article· en· W4410358667 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dongping Ming, Lu Xu, Qiong Wu, Yanni Ma, Yuanbiao Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsLandslideTerrainHazardNatural hazardNatural (archaeology)Natural disasterGeologyRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, torrential rainfall has triggered numerous shallow landslides in southeastern China. Therefore, giving a spatial-temporal hazard prediction for rainfall-induced shallow landslides on a fine-grained scale is imperative. Nowadays, most empirical hazard prediction methods are qualitative and consider only rainfall features. The generated prediction results lack sufficient spatial details and have a high false alarm rate. By improving the traditional hazard prediction method based on frequency statistics and utilizing landslide susceptibility, this paper proposes a quantitative hazard prediction method that simultaneously considers landslide triggering and predisposing factors. In the case of predicting natural terrain landslide hazards in Hong Kong, the spatial accuracy and fineness of the prediction results generated by the proposed methods are significantly enhanced compared to those predicted by the qualitative method based on rainfall features, thereby confirming the efficacy, reliability, and benefits of the proposed methods.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207