Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Geological Survey of Canada's new seismic hazard model for Canada will form the basis for the seismic design provisions of the 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). We deaggregate the seismic hazard results for selected cities to help understand the relative contributions of the earthquake sources in terms of distance and magnitude. Deaggregation for a range of spectral accelerations (Sa(0.1) to Sa(2.0) seconds) and for a number of probabilities (2%/50, 5%/50, 10%/50, 20%/50, 40%/50 years) is performed to examine in detail the hazard for two of Canada's largest urban centres at high risk, Vancouver in the west and Montreal in the east. Additional plots and a summary table of deaggregated seismic hazard are provided for other selected Canadian cities, for Sa(0.2) and Sa(1.0) seconds and for a probability of exceedence of 2%/50 years. In most cases, as the probability decreases, the hazard sources closer to the site dominate. Larger, more distant earthquakes contribute more significantly to hazard for longer periods than shorter periods. Deaggregation plots can provide useful information on the distance and magnitude of predominant sources, which can be used to generate scenario earthquakes and select corresponding time histories for seismic design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".