Development of seismic hazard maps for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new seismic hazard model, the fourth national model for Canada, has been devised by the Geological Survey of Canada to update Canada's current (1985) seismic hazard maps. The model incorporates new knowledge from recent earthquakes (both Canadian and foreign), new strong ground motion relations to describe how shaking varies with magnitude and distance, the newly recognized hazard from Cascadia subduction earthquakes, and a more systematic approach to reference site conditions. Other new innovations are hazard computation at the 2% in 50 year probability level, the use of the median ground motions, the presentation of results as uniform hazard spectra, and the explicit incorporation of uncertainty via a logic-tree approach. These new results provide a more reliable basis for characterizing seismic hazard across Canada and have been approved by the Canadian National Committee on Earthquake Engineering (CANCEE) as the basis of the seismic loads in the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada.Key words: seismic hazard, earthquake, probability, uniform hazard spectrum, maps, Cascadia subduction, strong ground motions, uncertainty, CANCEE, National Building Code of Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".