Estimating soil erosion utilizing geospatial method and revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) of Abu Ghraibat Watershed, Eastern Misan Governorate, Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the synergistic and independent effects of soil properties, vegetation cover, conservation practices, and slope on the spatial distribution characteristics of soil erosion in the Abu-Ghraibat watershed in 2024. Soil samples have been collected and analyzed in the laboratory, along with high-resolution satellite imagery, meteorological data, and digital elevation model (DEM) data. The findings indicate that soil erosion in the Abu-Ghraibat watershed in 2024 was minimal, with a progressively increasing severity from north to south. In the studied area, grassland accounts for over 50% of soil erosion, with regions with vegetation coverage > 30% as the primary contributors, all of which are influenced by slope. Moreover, the enhancement of vegetation in the lower strata of the basin and in grasslands, especially on slopes ranging from 10° to 45°, along with the conversion of sloping woodlands and grasslands into terraces, has proven an effective strategy for mitigating soil erosion in the Abu-Ghraibat watershed. The present study has demonstrated that the RUSLEGIS integrated model may serve as an effective instrument for quantitatively and spatially mapping soil erosion at the watershed level in the Abu-Ghraibat, while accounting for the provision of landscape services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".