assessment of groundwater potential based on multicriteria decision making model and decision tree algorithms

Clicks: 187
ID: 227251
2016
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #132 of 1,093 articles by views in journal of power sources

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,093 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Groundwater plays an important role in global climate change and satisfying human needs. In the study, RS (remote sensing) and GIS (geographic information system) were utilized to generate five thematic layers, lithology, lineament density, topology, slope, and river density considered as factors influencing the groundwater potential. Then, the multicriteria decision model (MCDM) was integrated with C5.0 and CART, respectively, to generate the decision tree with 80 surveyed tube wells divided into four classes on the basis of the yield. To test the precision of the decision tree algorithms, the 10-fold cross validation and kappa coefficient were adopted and the average kappa coefficient for C5.0 and CART was 90.45% and 85.09%, respectively. After applying the decision tree to the whole study area, four classes of groundwater potential zones were demarcated. According to the classification result, the four grades of groundwater potential zones, “very good,” “good,” “moderate,” and “poor,” occupy 4.61%, 8.58%, 26.59%, and 60.23%, respectively, with C5.0 algorithm, while occupying the percentages of 4.68%, 10.09%, 26.10%, and 59.13%, respectively, with CART algorithm. Therefore, we can draw the conclusion that C5.0 algorithm is more appropriate than CART for the groundwater potential zone prediction.
Reference Key
duan2016mathematicalassessment Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Huajie Duan;Zhengdong Deng;Feifan Deng;Daqing Wang
Journal journal of power sources
Year 2016
DOI
10.1155/2016/2064575
URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2064575
Keywords
civil engineering (general)mathematics engineering (general)

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.