Regional seismic risk in British Columbia — damage and loss distribution in Victoria and Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of regional seismic risk assessment studies that were carried out for two cities in southwestern British Columbia, Vancouver and Victoria. Ground shaking intensity in the area was obtained using the seismic source zones delineated by the Geological Survey of Canada for a probability level of 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years. Building inventories were compiled by aggregating data from sidewalk surveys as well as municipal databases. Modified Mercalli intensity-based damage matrices that relate the level of ground shaking to the amount of damage expected in different types of structures were used to estimate damage to structural and non-structural components of buildings. Estimated damage and loss distributions were mapped on a block-by-block basis. The historic sections of the cities were estimated to have damage levels between 10% and 30% of the replacement cost, while in the rest of the cities the estimated damage was generally in the 5% to 10% range. The results show the estimated economic loss distribution is considerably different from the damage distribution. Although the older neighbourhoods of the cities are expected to suffer highest amount of damage, the highest amount of economic loss is estimated to occur in areas with concentration of concrete high-rise buildings.Key words: seismic hazard, seismic risk, vulnerability, earthquake, damage, loss, probability, modified Mercalli intensity.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".