Extract relevant features from DEM for groundwater potential mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) method has been applied much in groundwater potential mapping researches. But when to data scarce areas, it will encounter lots of problems due to limited data. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is the digital representations of the topography, and has many applications in various fields. Former researches had been approved that much information concerned to groundwater potential mapping (such as geological features, terrain features, hydrology features, etc.) can be extracted from DEM data. This made using DEM data for groundwater potential mapping is feasible. In this research, one of the most widely used and also easy to access data in GIS, DEM data was used to extract information for groundwater potential mapping in batter river basin in Alberta, Canada. First five determining factors for potential ground water mapping were put forward based on previous studies (lineaments and lineament density, drainage networks and its density, topographic wetness index (TWI), relief and convergence Index (CI)). Extraction methods of the five determining factors from DEM were put forward and thematic maps were produced accordingly. Cumulative effects matrix was used for weight assignment, a multi-criteria evaluation process was carried out by ArcGIS software to delineate the potential groundwater map. The final groundwater potential map was divided into five categories, viz., non-potential, poor, moderate, good, and excellent zones. Eventually, the success rate curve was drawn and the area under curve (AUC) was figured out for validation. Validation result showed that the success rate of the model was 79 % and approved the method’s feasibility. The method afforded a new way for researches on groundwater
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".