MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152427244 · doi:10.1193/022813eqs056m

Performance of Electric Power Systems in the 2010–2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, Earthquake Sequence

2014· article· en· W2152427244 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Kwasinski, John Eidinger, Alex Tang, Christophe Tudo-Bornarel

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAftershockSeismologyMasonryForensic engineeringLandslideGeologyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From late‐2010 to mid‐2011, Christchurch suffered a series of earthquakes and aftershocks that affected the city's power supply. The most relevant of these events occurred on 4 September 2010, 22 February 2011, and 13 June 2011. In all these events transmission level power restoration occurred rapidly—within one day. Except for the second event, similar relatively minor damage led to rapid restoration of distribution‐level power outages. However, extensive damage to underground cables during the February 2011 earthquake caused some outages that lasted until early March. This damage seems to be amongst the only extensively‐documented such failures to date. Despite recorded strong ground shakings, damage to other power infrastructure facilities was moderate to minor. This satisfactory performance of power infrastructure is attributed to a program implemented during the decade prior to this earthquake sequence to seismically upgrade almost all unreinforced masonry substation buildings and reinforce other infrastructure elements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations100
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207