Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 870

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Landslide susceptibility mapping: A comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey)

Open access
Yesilnacar, E., Topal, T.·2005·Engineering Geology

Abstract

Abstract Landslide susceptibility mapping is one of the most critical issues in Turkey. At present, geotechnical models appear to be useful only in areas of limited extent, because it is difficult to collect geotechnical data with appropriate resolution over larger regions. In addition, many of the physical variables that are necessary for running these models are not usually available, and their acquisition is often very costly. Conversely, statistical approaches are currently pursued to assess landslide hazard over large regions. However, these approaches cannot effectively model complicated landslide hazard problems, since there is a non-linear relationship between nature-based problems and their triggering factors. Most of the statistical methods are distribution-based and cannot handle multisource data that are commonly collected from nature. In this respect, logistic regression and neural networks provide the potential to overcome drawbacks and to satisfy more rigorous landslide susceptibility mapping requirements. In the Hendek region of Turkey, a segment of natural gas pipeline was damaged due to landslide. Re-routing of the pipeline is planned but it requires preparation of landslide susceptibility map. For this purpose, logistic regression analysis and neural networks are applied to prepare landslide susceptibility map of the problematic segment of the pipeline. At the end, comparative analysis is conducted on the strengths and weaknesses of both techniques. Based on the higher percentages of landslide bodies predicted in very high and high landslide susceptibility zones, and compatibility between field observations and the important factors obtained in the analyses, the result found by neural network is more realistic.

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.enggeo.2005.02.002

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Metadata

Authors
Yesilnacar, E., & Topal, T.
Venue
Engineering Geology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-07
Volume
79
Issue
3-4
Pages
251-266
ISSN
0013-7952 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042229599
Cited by
870
References
31
FWCI
44.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Landslide susceptibility mapping: A comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.02.002
The paper
Yesilnacar, E., & Topal, T. (2005). Landslide susceptibility mapping: A comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Engineering Geology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.02.002

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.