A comparison of two regional seismic damage estimation methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison of the two main regional damage estimation methodologies currently in use, namely the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) based approach and the spectral parameter based approach. In the first methodology, expected damage is related to ground shaking intensity in terms of MMI through damage probability matrices. In the second methodology, the ground motion intensity is described in terms of spectral acceleration (SA), and building response in terms of spectral displacement (SD). Both methodologies were applied to buildings in Vancouver of three different construction types: single-family wood-frame houses, low-rise unreinforced masonry buildings, and high-rise concrete frame structures with concrete shear walls. The two methodologies predict damage that lies in the same general damage categories of light and moderate, which are defined by fairly broad ranges in mean damage factors. The specific mean damage factors predicted by the two methods for a given location are significantly different, however. The significant differences in mean damage factors imply significant differences in damage costs and hence in seismic risk.Key words: earthquake, damage, seismic risk, vulnerability, modified Mercalli intensity (MMI), spectral response, displacement, acceleration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".