Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Landslide susceptibility modelling using GIS-based machine learning techniques for Chongren County, Jiangxi Province, China

Open access
Chen, Wei, Peng, Jianbing, Hong, Haoyuan, Shahabi, Himan, Pradhan, Biswajeet, Liu, Junzhi, Zhu, A-Xing, Pei, Xiangjun, Duan, Zhao·2018·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

The preparation of a landslide susceptibility map is considered to be the first step for landslide hazard mitigation and risk assessment. However, these maps are accepted as end products that can be used for land use planning. The main goal of this study is to assess and compare four advanced machine learning techniques, namely the Bayes' net (BN), radical basis function (RBF) classifier, logistic model tree (LMT), and random forest (RF) models, for landslide susceptibility modelling in Chongren County, China. A total of 222 landslide locations were identified in the study area using historical reports, interpretation of aerial photographs, and extensive field surveys. The landslide inventory data was randomly split into two groups with a ratio of 70/30 for training and validation purposes. Fifteen landslide conditioning factors were prepared for landslide susceptibility modelling. The spatial correlation between landslides and conditioning factors was analyzed using the information gain (IG) method. The BN, RBF classifier, LMT, and RF models were constructed using the training dataset. Finally, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and statistical measures, including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were employed to validate and compare the predictive capabilities of the models. Out of the tested models, the RF model had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values of 0.787, 0.716, and 0.752, respectively, for the training dataset. Overall, the RF model produced an optimized balance for the training and validation datasets in terms of AUC values and statistical measures. The results of this study also demonstrate the benefit of selecting optimal machine learning techniques with proper conditioning selection methods for landslide susceptibility modelling.

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.2018.01.124

Cites

45 of 45 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 45 references

Cited by

See all 478

Metadata

Authors
Chen, W., Peng, J., Hong, H., Shahabi, H., Pradhan, B., Liu, J., Zhu, A.-X., Pei, X., & Duan, Z.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
626
Pages
1121-1135
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2791665776
Cited by
478
References
45
FWCI
78.20
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: Landslide susceptibility modelling using GIS-based machine learning techniques for Chongren County, Jiangxi Province, China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.124
The paper
Chen, W., Peng, J., Hong, H., Shahabi, H., Pradhan, B., Liu, J., Zhu, A.-X., Pei, X., & Duan, Z. (2018). Landslide susceptibility modelling using GIS-based machine learning techniques for Chongren County, Jiangxi Province, China. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.124

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.