2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-8990-5_16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Alternative Strategies for Mapping ACS Estimates and Error of Estimation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is agreed and confirmed by Jebur et al [120], Bui et al [121], Bui et al [107] and Shirzadi et al [112]. Gully erosion susceptibility maps were prepared by all machine learning models used in this study and then classified using four known classification methods such as natural breaks, quantile, geometrical interval and equal interval [122]. All these methods for classifying gully erosion susceptibility maps and the results indicated that, for example natural breaks, geometrical interval and equal interval, had a low logical prediction as visualization.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is agreed and confirmed by Jebur et al [120], Bui et al [121], Bui et al [107] and Shirzadi et al [112]. Gully erosion susceptibility maps were prepared by all machine learning models used in this study and then classified using four known classification methods such as natural breaks, quantile, geometrical interval and equal interval [122]. All these methods for classifying gully erosion susceptibility maps and the results indicated that, for example natural breaks, geometrical interval and equal interval, had a low logical prediction as visualization.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Additionally, quantile method could assign more gully erosion location in the high and very high susceptibility classes of gully susceptibility maps in all machine learning algorithms. Some researchers have used the quantile classification method to divide the natural hazards susceptibility index such as Umar et al [123], while Farncis et al [122] used natural beaks, Pham et al [124] used geometrical interval classification methods in their study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The bivariate approach also has been popularly used for uncertainty visualization, because an attribute and its associated uncertainty information may be considered to be a pair of variables. Previous studies conclude that the bivariate approach is more effective than adjacent display in terms of cluster detection [9,22,29]. A major advantage of this approach is that readers do not need to switch their focus back and forth between two maps to build connections between the estimates and their uncertainties [11].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, some studies [11,38] discuss that a visual representation of absolute error measures (e.g., the standard error of an estimate) may lead to an inappropriate conclusion and interpretation because large attribute values tend to have large standard errors. Furthermore, Francis et al [29] discuss the appropriateness of using relative measures of errors, such as the coefficient of variation (CV), for counts (e.g., the total number of households and of occupied houses) and median or mean values (e.g., median age and mean household income). Nevertheless, an absolute measure of error is still appropriate for proportional or ratio values (e.g., percentage of Asians), which are bounded by a specific value range: i.e., between 0 and 1 for proportional values and between 0 and 100 for percentages [29].…”
Section: An Applicationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cartographic styles of bivariate hachures followed the recommendations of Slocum et al (2009), and the classification of hachure intervals on choropleth maps followed the standard of Francis et al (2015).…”
Section: Multivariate Geovisualization Productsmentioning
confidence: 99%