MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916618959 · doi:10.1193/010915eqs005m

Estimating Annualized Earthquake Losses for the Conterminous United States

2015· article· en· W1916618959 on OpenAlexaff
Kishor Jaiswal, Doug Bausch, Rui Chen, Jawhar Bouabid, Hope A. Seligson

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsHillsborough Hospital
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsCensusGeographySeismic hazardPopulationMagnitude (astronomy)Environmental scienceSeismologyGeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We make use of the most recent National Seismic Hazard Maps (the years 2008 and 2014 cycles), updated Census data on population, and economic exposure estimates of general building stock to quantify annualized earthquake loss (AEL) for the conterminous United States. The AEL analyses were performed using the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazus software, which facilitated a systematic comparison of the influence of the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Maps in terms of annualized loss estimates in different parts of the country. The losses from an individual earthquake could easily exceed many tens of billions of dollars, and the long‐term averaged value of losses from all earthquakes within the conterminous United States has been estimated to be a few billion dollars per year. This study estimated nationwide losses to be approximately $4.5 billion per year (in 2012 dollars), roughly 80%of which can be attributed to the states of California, Oregon, and Washington. We document the change in estimated AELs arising solely from the change in the assumed hazard map. The change from the 2008 map to the 2014 map results in a 10% to 20% reduction in AELs for the highly seismic states of the Western United States, whereas the reduction is even more significant for the Central and Eastern United States.

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)0.003
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207