Revising the areal extent of post-earthquake inspections of dams in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-earthquake inspection is required by many dam safety regulations. Typically, based on the magnitude of the earthquake, the guidelines define an area within which dams should be inspected. The areas are established on ground-motion relations derived for the western United States. In eastern North America (ENA), the attenuation is slower with distance from the earthquake epicentre, and as a consequence the inspection area should be significantly larger than that recommended by the current guidelines. We review the state of knowledge on earthquake damage to dams, the factors used to define post-earthquake inspections, and the earthquake characteristics used to define the guidelines. We recommend new radii of inspections for dams applicable in ENA, including the Province of Quebec. Derived from historical earthquake information, the proposed new radii of inspections are twofold to sixfold larger than the 1988 guidelines of the International Commission on Large Dams. It is also suggested that a half-magnitude unit be added to every magnitude “rapidly” released by seismological organizations to include the intrinsic uncertainty in magnitude values and types. Our proposed approach is only one avenue that dam owners can follow to comply with dam safety regulations. Irrespective of the avenue chosen, however, this paper emphasizes the need for dam owners to consider the lower ground motion attenuation in ENA.Key words: earthquake, damage, dam, inspection, natural hazards, emergency response.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".