MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412136463 · doi:10.12962/j2716179x.v20ii.5133

Pemetaan Kerentanan Tanah Longsor berbasis Machine Learning

2025· article· id· W4412136463 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Penataan Ruang · 2025
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater and Land Management
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masalah longsor merupakan salah satu jenis bencana yang merusak kerugian jiwa ekonomi dan manusia. Masalah ini membutuhkan kesadaran dan pemetaan daerah rentan untuk mencegah efeknya. Penelitian ini meninjau 28 penelitian yang berlokasi di Cina, Iran, Pakistan, Korea Selatan, Slovakia, Yunani, Brazil, Rwanda dan Rumania.Negara-negara ini menghadapi masalah longsor karena topografinya lebih banyak jenis medan berbukit. Random Forest menjadi metode yang paling populer digunakan dalam pemeetaan kerentanan tanah longsor. Akurasi yang didapat dalam penelitian tersebut menghasilkan akurasi antara 70% dan 98,3% dan nilai AUC dari sekitar 0,8 hingga 0,997. Beberapa makalah menunjukkan bahwa ensemble dan pendekatan pembelajaran mendalam (termasuk jaringan saraf konvolusi dan berulang) berkinerja secara kompetitif tetapi membutuhkan sumber daya komputasi yang lebih besar. Faktor topografi (kemiringan, ketinggian, aspek, kelengkungan) menjadi faktor yang paling sering digunakan dalam topik ini. Tinjauan artikel ini mencakup publikasi dalam kurun waktu lima tahun terakhir, yaitu dari tahun 2020 hingga Mei 2025. Penelitian ini lebih difokuskan pada model machine learning untuk memetakan masalah longsor di daerah terpilih ini. Penelitian ini dapat membantu peneliti masa depan yang akan memanfaatkan metode machine learning untuk memetakan kerentanan daerah terhadap tanah.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Penataan RuangSame topicWater and Land ManagementFrench-language works237,207