ArticleGlobal challenges (Hoboken, NJ)2024
Evaluation of Groundwater Potential Zones Using GIS-Based Machine Learning Ensemble Models in the Gidabo Watershed, Ethiopia.
Article in Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Groundwater Potential Zones Using GIS-Based Machine Learning Ensemble Models in the Gidabo Watershed, Ethiopia.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to map and evaluate groundwater potential zones (GWPZs) using advanced ensemble machine learning (ML) models, notably Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM). GWPZs are identified by considering essential factors such as geology, drainage density, slope, land use/land cover (LULC), rainfall, soil, and lineament density. This is combined with datasets used for training and validating the RF and SVM models, which consisted of 75 potential sites (boreholes and springs), 22 non-potential sites (bare lands and settlement areas), and 20 potential sites (water bodies). Each dataset is randomly partitioned into two sets: training (70%) and validation (30%). The model's performance is evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). The AUC of the RF model is 0.91, compared to 0.88 for the SVM model. Both models classified GWPZs effectively, but the RF model performed slightly better. The classified GWPZ map shows that high GWPZs are typically located within water bodies, natural springs, low-lying regions, and forested areas. In contrast, low GWPZs are primarily found in shrubland and grassland areas. This study is vital for decision-makers as it promotes sustainable groundwater use and ensures water security in the studied area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.