Development of Earthquake Emergency Response Plan for Tribhuvan International Airport, Kathmandu, Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) awarded in April 2012 a research and development project to The University of British Columbia (UBC) to develop a methodology for the Earthquake Emergency Response Plan of the Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu, Nepal. A team of professionals from UBC, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) worked together to implement the project plan. The team project developed a disaster response plan (DRP) for TIA that focuses on earthquake hazard. The project team also delivered a responsibility synchronization matrix and TIADRP action checklists for two key positions: the Director of Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) and the General Manager of TIA Civil Aviation Office (CAO). Appendices to this report include resource documents containing guidelines for post-earthquake assessment of airfield for damage and throughput capacity, damage assessment of airport structures, utilities and operational/functional components (OFCs) and a list of rapid repair kit items. A list of recommendations for risk mitigation and effective recovery of the airport were also included based on need. The development of the plan built upon previous work already performed by CAAN, TIA and others. In developing the response plan the project team used stakeholders input as the primary basis. Secondary data was also used wherever available and was taken mostly from published reports and documents. For developing the resource documents, the procedures for post-earthquake rapid damage assessment of airport buildings, utilities and other OFC, and procedures for rapid repair of airfield pavement, guidelines and other literature from the United States, Canada, and Japan etc. were adapted for Nepalese context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".