Bibliographic record
Abstract
The catastrophic nature of seismic risk is attributed to spatiotemporal correlation of seismic losses of buildings and infrastructure. For seismic risk management, such correlated seismic effects must be adequately taken into account, since they affect the probability distribution of aggregate seismic losses of spatially distributed structures significantly, and its upper tail behavior can be of particular importance. To investigate seismic loss dependence for two closely located portfolios of buildings, simulated seismic loss samples, which are obtained from a seismic risk model of spatially distributed buildings by taking spatiotemporally correlated ground motions into account, are employed. The characterization considers a loss frequency model that incorporates one dependent random component acting as a common shock to all buildings, and a copula-based loss severity model, which facilitates the separate construction of marginal loss distribution functions and nonlinear copula function with upper tail dependence. The proposed method is applied to groups of wood-frame buildings located in southwestern British Columbia. Analysis results indicate that the dependence structure of aggregate seismic losses can be adequately modeled by the right heavy tail copula or Gumbel copula, and that for the considered example, overall accuracy of the proposed method is satisfactory at probability levels of practical interest (at most 10% estimation error of fractiles of aggregate seismic loss). The developed statistical seismic loss model may be adopted in dynamic financial analysis for achieving faster evaluation with reasonable accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".