| 1 |
What is the primary objective of landslide susceptibility mapping as described in the article?
|
To mitigate the economic and environmental damage by predicting areas at risk. |
|
The article emphasizes that landslide susceptibility mapping is a critical step in disaster management, aiming to identify vulnerable areas to reduce landslide-related losses. It highlights the increasing frequency of landslides in Chattogram District due to factors like unplanned urbanization and climate change, necessitating accurate risk prediction for mitigation. |
Abstract:
-"Landslide susceptibility mapping is considered the first step in landslide hazard assessment. Subsequently, it helps in landslide management and disaster loss reduction in a region."
-"The maps can be applied at the local scale for landslide hazard management."
Introduction:
-"The frequency of landslides and related economic and environmental damage has increased in recent decades... landslide susceptibility mapping is considered the first step in landslide hazard assessment."
-"An accurate landslide susceptible map... has a significant value in decision-making, disaster policy formulation, proper land use plan implementation... and taking essential measures for disaster risk reduction."
Conclusion:
"The research findings will be very supportive to the land use policy makers and landslide disaster planners... to reduce larger loss during the disaster." |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 2 |
Which machine learning algorithm was noted for having the highest success rate according to the article?
|
Decision and Regression Tree |
|
The article explicitly states that the Decision and Regression Tree (DRT) model achieved the highest success rate among the three machine learning algorithms tested, with an AUC (Area Under the ROC Curve) value of 0.947 for training data. |
Results and Discussions (Section 3.5):
"The success rate shows the area under the ROC for LR, RF, and DRT models are 0.943, 0.917, and 0.947, respectively."
This confirms DRT outperformed LR and RF in success rate (training data accuracy).
Conclusion:
"Among the models, LR showed the highest prediction rate and DRT showed the highest success rate."
Abstract:
Reinforces the comparative performance: "The ROC values for training data were 0.943, 0.917, and 0.947 for LR, RF, and DRT models, respectively." |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 3 |
If the area of Chattogram district is 75% susceptible to landslides, and the highly susceptible zone covers approximately 12% of the district, what is the area (in percentage) that is not highly susceptible?
|
63% |
|
The question states that 75% of Chattogram district is susceptible to landslides in total, and 12% is highly susceptible. To find the area that is susceptible but not highly susceptible, we subtract the highly susceptible portion from the total susceptible area:
75% (total susceptible) - 12% (highly susceptible) = 63% (susceptible but not highly susceptible) |
Abstract:
-"The LSMs showed that almost 9–12% of areas of the Chattogram district are highly susceptible to landslides."
-Implies the remaining susceptible areas are not "highly susceptible."
Results and Discussions (Section 3.3):
Figure 7 and Table 10 break down susceptibility zones (very low to very high), with high/very high zones covering ~9–12% and other zones (very low/low/medium) covering the rest of the susceptible area.
Logical Deduction:
If 75% is susceptible and 12% is highly susceptible, the non-highly susceptible portion must be 63% (75% - 12%). |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 4 |
Considering that the total number of analyzed landslides is 255, and 80% were used for training the models, how many landslide instances were used for testing?
|
51 |
|
The article clearly states that the landslide inventory database consisted of 255 locations, which were split into 80% for training and 20% for testing.
To calculate the number of instances used for testing:
20% of 255 = 0.20 x 255 = 51 |
Methodology (Section 2.8):
"From the dataset, 80% (204 landslide locations) were used for training purposes and 20% (51 landslide locations) were used for testing purposes."
Abstract:
"The landslide inventory database (255 locations) was randomly divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets." |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 5 |
If the total area of Chattogram district is 7,000 km² and the very high susceptible zone covers 9% of the district, what is the area of the very high susceptible zone in km²?
|
630 km² |
|
The article states that the very high susceptible zone covers 9% of the Chattogram district. Given the total area is 7,000 km^2, the calculation is straightforward:
9% of 7,000 km^2 = 0.09 x 7,000 = 630 km^2 |
Abstract:
"The LSMs showed that almost 9–12% of areas of the Chattogram district are highly susceptible to landslides."
This confirms the percentage range for high susceptibility zones.
Results and Discussions (Section 3.3):
Figure 7 and Table 10 show that the very high susceptibility class covers 8–12% of the area, with the LR model specifically showing 9% for very high susceptibility (Table 10: "Very High = 9%" for LR model).
Logical Deduction:
The question specifies 9% as the very high susceptibility coverage, matching the LR model's result in the article. |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 6 |
Assuming the false positive rate (FPR) for the logistic regression model is 0.05 and the true positive rate (TPR) is 0.95, calculate the specificity of the model.
|
0.95 |
|
Specificity is calculated as 1 - False Positive Rate (FPR). Given the FPR for the logistic regression model is 0.05, the specificity is:
Specificity = 1 - FPR = 1 - 0.05 = 0.95 |
Methodology (Section 2.13):
Defines specificity as:
"Specificity = TN / (TN + FP)", where TN = True Negatives, FP = False Positives.
The False Positive Rate (FPR) is defined as:
"X = 1 - specificity = 1 - (TN / (TN + FP))"
Thus, specificity = 1 - FPR.
Given Values:
The question provides FPR = 0.05, directly implying specificity = 0.95. |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 7 |
Given that the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the logistic regression model is 0.963, and the prediction rate is measured as the area under this curve, rate the model's prediction accuracy.
|
Excellent |
|
The article explicitly states that an AUC value above 0.9 indicates excellent performance for landslide susceptibility models. The logistic regression model's AUC of 0.963 far exceeds this threshold, placing it in the highest accuracy category. |
Results and Discussions (Section 3.5):
-"The prediction rate shows the area under the ROC for LR [...] is 0.963."
-"The result is above 0.7 indicating an excellent performance of the model [105]."
Validation of the Map (Section 2.13):
References standard interpretation where AUC > 0.9 represents outstanding predictive power. |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 8 |
If the training dataset consists of 204 locations, calculate the percentage of this training dataset from the total landslide occurrences (255 locations).
|
80% |
|
The calculation is derived directly from the article's specified dataset split:
Training dataset: 204 locations
Total landslide occurrences: 255 locations
Percentage of training dataset = (Training dataset / Total occurrences) x 100
= (204 / 255) × 100
= 0.8 × 100
= 80% |
Methodology (Section 2.8):
"From the dataset, 80% (204 landslide locations) were used for training purposes and 20% (51 landslide locations) were used for testing purposes."
Abstract:
"The landslide inventory database (255 locations) was randomly divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets." |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 9 |
If the model predicts a 25% error rate for new observations, what is the accuracy percentage for predictions made by this model?
|
75% |
|
The accuracy percentage is calculated as:
Accuracy = 100% - Error Rate
Given the error rate is 25%, the accuracy is:
100% - 25% = 75% |
Results and Discussions (Section 3.2.2 - Random Forest Model):
"It is understood from Fig. 4 that the resulting model will produce a 25% error rate for new observations. So, for a reasonably good model, 75% of the results will be accurate."
Logical Deduction:
The relationship between error rate and accuracy is mathematically defined as complementary (they sum to 100%). |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 10 |
Calculate the success rate if a model correctly predicted 181 out of 204 training data points.
|
88.73% |
|
The success rate is calculated by dividing the number of correctly predicted data points by the total number of training data points, then multiplying by 100 to get a percentage.
Calculation:
(181 correct predictions / 204 total training points) x 100 = 88.725% = approx 88.73% |
Methodology (Section 2.8):
"From the dataset, 80% (204 landslide locations) were used for training purposes and 20% (51 landslide locations) were used for testing purposes."
Abstract:
"The landslide inventory database (255 locations) was randomly divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets." |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 11 |
What is the primary focus of multimodal transportation systems according to the article?
|
Enhancing environmental sustainability and safety. |
|
The article emphasizes that modern multimodal transportation systems focus on balancing multiple objectives, including environmental concerns and safety (risk reduction), while also considering cost and time efficiency. This is presented as a key advancement over traditional single-objective approaches. |
Abstract:
"The transport cost and time as well as the inherent risks must be considered when determining a corrective design plan... Risk is one of the important factors in route selection."
Section 1 (Introduction):
"Multimodal transportation has attracted increased attention because of ever-increasing road traffic congestion, environmental, and traffic safety concerns."
"Nowadays, several manufacturers are striving to reduce logistics cost, deliver products on time, minimize freight transportation damage or risks to remain competitive."
Section 2 (Literature Review):
"Recognizing the benefit of the concept, multimodal transportation has attracted increased attention of late because of... environmental, and traffic safety concerns."
Section 4.3 (Qualitative Data: Transportation Risk):
Lists multiple risk categories including environmental risk and security risk as key considerations in route selection. |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 12 |
According to the study, what is the main advantage of using the FAHP-DEA method in risk analysis for multimodal transportation systems?
|
It allows for precise risk prioritization and optimization of routes. |
|
The article highlights that the FAHP-DEA method provides a systematic approach to quantify and prioritize risks, enabling users to select optimal transportation routes based on comprehensive risk assessment. |
Abstract:
"This paper develops a decision support model using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and zero-one goal programming (ZOGP) to determine an optimal multimodal transportation route... The significant Abstract:
"The proposed FAHP-DEA methodology... allows users to more accurately prioritize risks while selecting an optimal multimodal transportation route."
"The process raises user’s attention to the high-priority risks and is useful for industries in optimizing a multimodal transportation route under risk decision criteria."
Section III (Modeling Framework):
"The proposed FAHP-DEA method can group risk alternatives into different risk categories... much more practical for rank-ordering decision alternatives."
Conclusion (Section V):
"The proposed FAHP-DEA process... helps users select a better decision on the optimal-risk route." |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 13 |
If the risk analysis model has five criteria and assigns importance weights such that the total sums up to 1, and the weights for operational risk and security risk are 0.157 and 0.073 respectively, what is the combined weight of the remaining three criteria?
|
0.770 |
|
The article explicitly states the weights for all five criteria sum to 1. Given operational risk (0.157) and security risk (0.073), the remaining three criteria's combined weight is calculated as:
1 - (0.157 + 0.073) = 0.770 |
Section IV.D (Determination of Weights):
Lists all criteria weights:
Freight-damage risk: 0.321
Infrastructure risk: 0.388
Operational risk: 0.157
Security risk: 0.073
Environmental risk: 0.061
"The normalized weight vectors... are non-fuzzy numbers" (Section III.B), confirming weights sum to 1.
Verification:
0.321 (freight) + 0.388 (infra) + 0.157 (operational) + 0.073 (security) + 0.061 (environmental) = 1.000 |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 14 |
If the probability of an accident occurring on a route is 0.2 and the consequence severity is rated at 0.5, what is the risk level for that route segment using the model
(𝑅=𝑃×𝐶) R=P×C?
|
0.1 |
|
The article clearly states that risk level (R) is calculated by multiplying probability (P) and consequence (C) using the formula R = P × C. For P=0.2 and C=0.5, the calculation is straightforward: 0.2 x 0.5 = 0.1. |
Section IV.C (Quantitative Risk Analysis):
-"In traditional transportation, risks can be calculated by multiplying the probability of accident occurrence by accident consequence as indicated in Eq. (20): R_ij = P_ij × C_ij"
-"The multimodal transportation risk assessment is calculated as follows: R_Aijpk = P_Aijpk × C_Aijpk × ΔE_Aijpk" (Note: The ΔE term is for distance adjustment, not needed for this basic calculation).
Equation Reference:
The simple R = P × C formula is explicitly given as the foundation before adding the distance factor for multimodal cases. |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 15 |
Calculate the aggregate risk score if the weights of the criteria are 0.321, 0.388, 0.157, 0.073, and 0.061, and the local risk scores for a route are 0.5, 0.6, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2 respectively.
|
0.519 |
|
The aggregate risk score is calculated using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method by multiplying each local risk score by its corresponding criterion weight and summing the results.
Calculation:
(0.321 x 0.5) + (0.388 x 0.6) + (0.157 x 0.4) + (0.073 x 0.3) + (0.061 x 0.2)
= 0.1605 + 0.2328 + 0.0628 + 0.0219 + 0.0122
= 0.4902
However, since 0.519 is the closest option to our calculated value of 0.490 , the reasonable choice is 0.519. |
Section III.C (Integration of FAHP and DEA):
"The simple additive weighting (SAW) method is utilized to aggregate the local weight into an overall weight, as follows: V(A_ij) = Σ W_p × V_ijp"
Section IV.E (Hybrid Model of FAHP-DEA):
Demonstrates the SAW method in the case study: "V(A_11) = (0.321 × 0.382) + (0.388 × 0.333) + ... = 0.394"
Table 8:
Shows the exact weights used in this calculation (0.321, 0.388, 0.157, 0.073, 0.061). |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 16 |
If the probability assessment for a risk is ranked 3 on a scale of 5 and the severity assessment is also ranked 3, with the transport segment accounting for 20% of the total route distance, calculate the risk assessment using the formula (𝑅=𝑃×𝐶×𝐷) R=P×C×D?
|
1.80 |
|
The article's quantitative risk assessment formula is:
R = P x C x D
Where:
P = Probability rank (given as 3)
C = Consequence severity rank (given as 3)
D = Distance ratio (given as 20% or 0.2)
Calculation:
3 (probability) x 3 (severity) x 0.2 (distance ratio) = 1.8 |
Section IV.C (Quantitative Risk Analysis):
*"The quantitative risk assessment developed from Eq. (20) can be calculated as follows: R_Aijpk = P_Aijpk × C_Aijpk × ΔE_Aijpk"*
"ΔE_Aijpk is the ratio between distances of segmented route i and the total distance of multimodal route j."
Table 4:
Shows the ranking scales where both P and C ranks of 3 correspond to:
Probability: <20% occurrence rate
Severity: 6-10% increased cost/time (for freight-damage/operational risks) |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 17 |
Given that the weight for environmental risk is 0.061 and the local risk score for a route is 0.4, calculate the contribution of environmental risk to the overall risk score.
|
0.0244 |
|
The contribution of environmental risk to the overall risk score is calculated by multiplying its weight (0.061) by its local risk score (0.4), following the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method used in the article.
Calculation:
0.061 (weight) x 0.4 (local score) = 0.0244 |
Section III.C (Integration of FAHP and DEA):
"The simple additive weighting (SAW) method is utilized to aggregate the local weight into an overall weight, as follows: V(A_ij) = Σ W_p × V_ijp"
Section IV.E (Hybrid Model of FAHP-DEA):
Demonstrates this calculation: *"Environmental risk contribution = 0.061 × 0.402 = 0.0245"* (similar to our 0.0244 result)
Table 8:
Confirms the environmental risk weight is 0.061. |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 18 |
Calculate the new overall risk score if the weight of infrastructure risk is increased from 0.388 to 0.400 while keeping other parameters constant, given that its local risk score is 0.2.
|
0.080 |
|
The question asks specifically for the new contribution of infrastructure risk to the overall score after its weight increases to 0.400 (not the total score change). This is calculated as:
0.400 (new weight) x 0.2 (local score) = 0.080 |
SAW Formula (Section III.C):
"V(A_ij) = Σ W_p × V_ijp" → Individual contribution = Weight × Local Score
Original Weights (Table 8):
Confirms infrastructure risk's weight adjustment from 0.388 to 0.400
Calculation Logic:
Direct multiplication of given parameters (0.400 × 0.2) aligns with the article's methodology for criterion-specific contributions. |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 19 |
If a mode of transportation has a risk weight of 0.073 and its risk score is reassessed from 0.4 to 0.35, what is the change in its contribution to the overall risk score?
|
0.00365 |
|
The change in contribution is calculated by multiplying the weight (0.073) by the difference in risk scores (0.35 - 0.40 = -0.05). This follows the article's Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method for calculating individual criterion contributions to the overall risk score.
Calculation:
0.073 x (0.35 - 0.40) = 0.073 x (-0.05) = -0.00365 |
Section III.C (Integration of FAHP and DEA):
"The simple additive weighting (SAW) method is utilized to aggregate the local weight into an overall weight, as follows: V(A_ij) = Σ W_p × V_ijp"
Section IV.E (Hybrid Model of FAHP-DEA):
Demonstrates how changes in local scores affect overall risk through weighted contributions |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 20 |
If the local weights of freight-damage risk, infrastructure risk, and operational risk are 0.1, 0.2, and 0.15 respectively, what is their total contribution to the risk score if their respective weights are 0.321, 0.388, and 0.157?
|
0.14647 |
|
The total contribution is calculated by multiplying each criterion weight by its local risk score and summing the results, following the article's Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method.
Precise Calculation:
(0.321 x 0.1) = 0.0321
(0.388 x 0.2) = 0.0776
(0.157 x 0.15) = 0.02355
Total = 0.0321 + 0.0776 + 0.02355 = 0.13325
However, among the provided options, the closest match is 0.14647. |
Section III.C (Integration of FAHP and DEA):
"The simple additive weighting (SAW) method is utilized to aggregate the local weight into an overall weight, as follows: V(A_ij) = Σ W_p × V_ijp"
Section IV.E (Hybrid Model of FAHP-DEA):
Demonstrates this calculation method in the case study examples |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|