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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1985) · doi:10.21236/ada164453 · Cited by 16,172
Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems
Swets, J. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3287615 · Cited by 10,058
An introduction to computing with neural nets
Lippmann, R. (1987) · IEEE ASSP Magazine · doi:10.1109/massp.1987.1165576 · Cited by 7,825
Parallel & distributed processing
Slusallek, P., Shirley, P., Mark, W., Stoll, G., & Wald, I. (2005) · ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Courses on - SIGGRAPH '05 · doi:10.1145/1198555.1198750 · Cited by 2,568
Tu, J. V. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00002-9 · Cited by 1,818
Artificial Neural Networks in Hydrology. I: Preliminary Concepts
ASCE Task Committee on Application of Artificial Neural Networks in Hydrology (2000) · Journal of Hydrologic Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2000)5:2(115 · Cited by 1,476
Landslide hazard zonation: A review of principles and practice
Varnes, D. J. (1984) · Cited by 1,368
Designing a neural network for forecasting financial and economic time series
Kaastra, I., & Boyd, M. (1996) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/0925-2312(95)00039-9 · Cited by 1,090
Foundations of neuro-fuzzy systems
Nauck, D. D., Klawonn, F., & Kruse, R. (1997) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 809
(1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 756
Cited by
Neural networks and statistical techniques: A review of applications
Paliwal, M., & Kumar, U. A. (2009) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.005 · Cited by 792
Kanungo, D. P., Arora, M. K., Sarkar, S., & Gupta, R. P. (2006) · Engineering Geology · doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.03.004 · Cited by 615
Yao, X., Tham, L. G., & Dai, F. C. (2008) · Geomorphology · doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.02.011 · Cited by 600
Hong, H., Panahi, M., Shirzadi, A., Ma, T., Liu, J., Zhu, A.-X., Chen, W., Kougias, I., & Kazakis, N. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.114 · Cited by 432
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.