↓ Skip to main content

Performance assessment of individual and ensemble data-mining techniques for gully erosion modeling

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
259 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Performance assessment of individual and ensemble data-mining techniques for gully erosion modeling
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hamid Reza Pourghasemi, Saleh Yousefi, Aiding Kornejady, Artemi Cerdà

Abstract

Gully erosion is identified as an important sediment source in a range of environments and plays a conclusive role in redistribution of eroded soils on a slope. Hence, addressing spatial occurrence pattern of this phenomenon is very important. Different ensemble models and their single counterparts, mostly data mining methods, have been used for gully erosion susceptibility mapping; however, their calibration and validation procedures need to be thoroughly addressed. The current study presents a series of individual and ensemble data mining methods including artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), maximum entropy (ME), ANN-SVM, ANN-ME, and SVM-ME to map gully erosion susceptibility in Aghemam watershed, Iran. To this aim, a gully inventory map along with sixteen gully conditioning factors was used. A 70:30% randomly partitioned sets were used to assess goodness-of-fit and prediction power of the models. The robustness, as the stability of models' performance in response to changes in the dataset, was assessed through three training/test replicates. As a result, conducted preliminary statistical tests showed that ANN has the highest concordance and spatial differentiation with a chi-square value of 36,656 at 95% confidence level, while the ME appeared to have the lowest concordance (1772). The ME model showed an impractical result where 45% of the study area was introduced as highly susceptible to gullying, in contrast, ANN-SVM indicated a practical result with focusing only on 34% of the study area. Through all three replicates, the ANN-SVM ensemble showed the highest goodness-of-fit and predictive power with a respective values of 0.897 (area under the success rate curve) and 0.879 (area under the prediction rate curve), on average, and correspondingly the highest robustness. This attests the important role of ensemble modeling in congruently building accurate and generalized models which emphasizes the necessity to examine different models integrations. The result of this study can prepare an outline for further biophysical designs on gullies scattered in the study area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 16%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Lecturer 11 6%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 56 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 29 17%
Environmental Science 24 14%
Engineering 20 12%
Computer Science 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 63 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#19,180
of 29,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,018
of 326,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#240
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.