Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GIS-based groundwater potential analysis using novel ensemble weights-of-evidence with logistic regression and functional tree models

Open access
Chen, Wei, Li, Hui, Hou, Enke, Wang, Shengquan, Wang, Guirong, Panahi, Mahdi, Li, Tao, Peng, Tao, Guo, Chen, Niu, Chao, Xiao, Lele, Wang, Jiale, Xie, Xiaoshen, Ahmad, Baharin Bin·2018·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to produce groundwater spring potential maps using novel ensemble weights-of-evidence (WoE) with logistic regression (LR) and functional tree (FT) models. First, a total of 66 springs were identified by field surveys, out of which 70% of the spring locations were used for training the models and 30% of the spring locations were employed for the validation process. Second, a total of 14 affecting factors including aspect, altitude, slope, plan curvature, profile curvature, stream power index (SPI), topographic wetness index (TWI), sediment transport index (STI), lithology, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), land use, soil, distance to roads, and distance to streams was used to analyze the spatial relationship between these affecting factors and spring occurrences. Multicollinearity analysis and feature selection of the correlation attribute evaluation (CAE) method were employed to optimize the affecting factors. Subsequently, the novel ensembles of the WoE, LR, and FT models were constructed using the training dataset. Finally, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, standard error, confidence interval (CI) at 95%, and significance level P were employed to validate and compare the performance of three models. Overall, all three models performed well for groundwater spring potential evaluation. The prediction capability of the FT model, with the highest AUC values, the smallest standard errors, the narrowest CIs, and the smallest P values for the training and validation datasets, is better compared to those of other models. The groundwater spring potential maps can be adopted for the management of water resources and land use by planners and engineers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.055

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Chen, W., Li, H., Hou, E., Wang, S., Wang, G., Panahi, M., Li, T., Peng, T., Guo, C., Niu, C., Xiao, L., Wang, J., Xie, X., & Ahmad, B. B.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
634
Pages
853-867
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2797310831
Cited by
341
References
50
FWCI
16.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GIS-based groundwater potential analysis using novel ensemble weights-of-evidence with logistic regression and functional tree models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.055
The paper
Chen, W., Li, H., Hou, E., Wang, S., Wang, G., Panahi, M., Li, T., Peng, T., Guo, C., Niu, C., Xiao, L., Wang, J., Xie, X., & Ahmad, B. B. (2018). GIS-based groundwater potential analysis using novel ensemble weights-of-evidence with logistic regression and functional tree models. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.055

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.