MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415099718 · doi:10.1016/j.geomat.2025.100078

Revealing the untold stories of sinkhole land subsidence over the remains of an underground river in tuff soil by Ground Penetrating Radar

2025· article· en· W4415099718 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mimi Diana Ghazali, Hijrah Saputra, Shafi Noor Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOMATICA · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas AirlanggaUniversiti Teknologi MARA
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarSinkholeGeohazardSubsidenceHydrogeologyAquiferGroundwaterPiezometerRadar

Abstract

Sinkhole-induced land subsidence poses a critical hazard in urban areas underlain by pyroclastic tuff formations. This study applies a calibrated Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) method to detect subsurface anomalies in Malang city, Indonesia, where residual underground river flow contributes to stratigraphic instability. Using a 90 MHz GPR OKO AB-90 system, calibrated with a portable Vector Network Analyzer (VNA), dielectric values ranging from 4.3 to 13.6 were obtained across dry tuff, saturated clay, and concrete layers. These values yielded reflection coefficients (R) between −0.023 and 0.035, indicating clear contrasts between restored culverts, suspected new sinkholes, and groundwater zones. GPR imaging revealed subsidence features at depths of 4 – 7 m , with high-density signal zones exceeding 0.85 normalized amplitude units. The signal accuracy was validated via Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE), with SNR values above 22 dB and NRMSE values below 0.07, confirming reliable anomaly detection. A regression analysis ( R 2 = 0.64 , p < 0.0001 ) between flood severity and subsidence events further supported the hydrogeological linkage and erosion-driven subsurface instability in pyroclastic terrains. These findings demonstrate that calibrated GPR effectively distinguishes subsurface anomalies in moisture-variable tuff environments. This approach enhances early detection of sinkhole-prone zones and supports urban geohazard mitigation strategies. • GPR delineates subsurface anomalies in sinkhole-prone urban volcanic tuff zones. • VNA calibration improves permittivity accuracy and signal reliability for GPR scans. • SNR > 22 dB and NRMSE < 0.07 confirm high-quality subsurface anomaly detection. • Rainfall and flood recurrence contextualize subsidence vulnerability in urban terrain. • Calibrated GPR offers a replicable method for urban geohazard mapping in tuff areas.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Geophysical survey using ground penetrating radar to detect sinkhole subsidence.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This applies ground-penetrating radar to sinkhole detection, not research practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Geotechnical GPR study of sinkhole land subsidence; domain engineering.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGEOMATICASame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207