MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W13314215

PROBABILITIES OF SIGNIFICANT EARTHQUAKE SHAKING IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS CANADA

2008· article· en· W13314215 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Onur, M. Seemann, S Halchuk, J Adams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismologySeismic hazardInduced seismicityGeologyEarthquake scenarioSubductionActive faultSeismic zoneGeological surveyEarthquake engineeringTectonicsPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismic hazard in Canada is well studied and extensively discussed within scientific and engineering communities. However, much of this information is presented in forums not readily accessible by those outside these communities, and in formats not easily understood by the “non-engineering ” community. To address this, earthquake shaking probabilities were calculated for over 600 communities across Canada at each of three intensity levels (MMI V – widely-felt; MMI VI – threshold for non-structural damage; and, MMI VII – threshold of structural damage) and over 10, 50, and 100 year periods. This paper presents a subset of these calculations for 25 communities. While the dominant tectonic features affecting seismicity in western Canada are the Cascadia Subduction Zone and the Queen Charlotte Strike-Slip Fault Zone along the active western margin of the North America Plate, the most active seismic zone in eastern Canada is the Charlevoix-Kamouraska seismic zone of paleo-rift faults along the St. Lawrence River. Shaking probabilities for all earthquakes are based on the probabilistic seismic hazard models developed by the Geological Survey of Canada and adopted in the National Building Code of Canada. Results presented in this paper are intended to enable officials and the public to better identify and understand the earthquake threat in their communities. This information is offered to encourage and facilitate informed discussion on earthquake threat in Canada, and enable reasoned, defendable seismic funding decisions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207