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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
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