MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149911984 · doi:10.1193/1.1596549

Bayesian Estimations of Peak Ground Acceleration and 5% Damped Spectral Acceleration from Modified Mercalli Intensity Data

2003· article· en· W2149911984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John E. Ebel, David J. Wald

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercalli intensity scalePeak ground accelerationSpectral accelerationAttenuationIntensity (physics)AccelerationGround motionGeodesyGeologySeismologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a new probabilistic method that uses observations of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) from past earthquakes to make quantitative estimates of ground shaking parameters (i.e., peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, 5% damped spectral acceleration values, etc.). The method uses a Bayesian approach to make quantitative estimates of the probabilities of different levels of ground motions from intensity data given an earthquake of known location and magnitude. The method utilizes probability distributions from an intensity/ground motion data set along with a ground motion attenuation relation to estimate the ground motion from intensity. The ground motions with the highest probabilities are the ones most likely experienced at the site of the MMI observation. We test the method using MMI/ground motion data from California and published ground motion attenuation relations to estimate the ground motions for several earthquakes: 1999 Hector Mine, California (M7.1); 1988 Saguenay, Quebec (M5.9); and 1982 Gaza, New Hampshire (M4.4). In an example where the method is applied to a historic earthquake, we estimate that the peak ground accelerations associated with the 1727 (M∼5.2) earthquake at Newbury, Massachusetts, ranged from 0.23 g at Newbury to 0.06 g at Boston.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207