Assessment of Ground-Motion Models for Use in the British Columbia North Coast Region, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 28 October 2012 M w 7.8 Haida Gwaii earthquake was the second largest earthquake instrumentally recorded in Canada’s territory and was strongly felt across the British Columbia north coast (BCNC) region. Data from the Haida Gwaii sequence and other events in the region are compiled for 56 earthquakes between moment magnitude M w 4.6 and 7.8 that occurred between 1996 and 2014. Pseudospectral accelerations (PSA) at 5% damping are calculated and compared against several modern ground‐motion models (GMMs) using different binning criteria (e.g., distance, magnitude, mechanism, source‐to‐site azimuth, and event chronology). Overall, no single model is found to be appropriate for the BCNC region, with GMMs generally overestimating recorded near‐source (i.e., Earthquake motions recorded prior to and including the 2012 M w 7.8 earthquake were generally more comparable with some GMMs at longer spectral periods but still possessed significant biases based on residual analyses. Additionally, earthquakes with normal mechanisms gave less short‐to‐mid‐period shaking relative to strike‐ and reverse‐slip events. Online Materials: Summary of the candidate ground‐motion prediction equations, indicating their distance metrics and conditions of use.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".