MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981652400 · doi:10.4095/224834

Les dommages dus aux tremblements de terre dans la région de Québec entre 1608 et 2007

2008· report· fr· W2981652400 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maurice Lamontagne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce dossier public présente un relevé des tremblements de terre qui ont affecté la région de Québec entre 1608 et 2007 ainsi qu'un survol de leurs conséquences locales. La région de Québec a subi les vibrations de séismes de magnitude modérée à forte dont les épicentres étaient situés soit dans la zone sismique de Charlevoix-Kamouraska en 1663, 1791, 1860, 1870 et 1925 soit dans la région du Saguenay pour celui de 1988. D'autres séismes avec des épicentres plus rapprochés ont aussi été ressentis, mais n'ont causé que des dommages mineurs. Pour chacun des séismes d'importance, la base de données procure les évidences de dommage avec leur position géographique, l'intensité correspondante sur l'échelle de Mercalli Modifiée de 1931 et des extraits de descriptions de documents écrits. Les évidences de dommages dus aux séismes mettent en relief certains quartiers et zones de la région plus susceptibles de subir des mouvements forts du sol. Ces renseignements pourront être corrélés avec les mesures de vitesses sismiques et de propriétés géotechniques. Ces renseignements peuvent aussi être utilisés dans la phase de préparation aux mesures d'urgence en permettant, par exemple, la conception d'exercices crédibles de sécurité civile.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207