Comparative analysis for detecting areas with building damage from several destructive earthquakes using satellite synthetic aperture radar images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquakes that have caused large-scale damage in developed areas, such as the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe events, remind us of the importance of making quick damage assessments in order to facilitate the resumption of normal activities and restoration planning. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) can be used to record physical aspects of the Earth's surface under any weather conditions, making it a powerful tool in the development of an applicable method for assessing damage following natural disasters. Detailed building damage data recorded on the ground following the 1995 Kobe earthquake may provide an invaluable opportunity to investigate the relationship between the backscattering properties and the degree of damage. This paper aims to investigate the differences between the backscattering coefficients and the correlations derived from pre- and post-earthquake SAR intensity images to smoothly detect areas with building damage. This method was then applied to SAR images recorded over the areas affected by the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey, the 2001 Gujarat earthquake in India, and the 2003 Boumerdes earthquake in Algeria. The accuracy of the proposed method was examined and confirmed by comparing the results of the SAR analyses with the field survey data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it