Mmin - Implications of its choice for Canadian seismic hazard and seismic risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses consider the contribution of ground motions from a range of magnitudes. The choice of maximum magnitude (Mmax) is often the source of considerable debate. However, the choice of minimum magnitude (Mmin) can also have a significant effect on the resulting hazard. This is especially true for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and short period hazard values in regions of low seismicity where the majority of the hazard contribution comes from small earthquakes at nearby distances. This is doubly so in eastern North America where PGA ground motions are high in amplitude, even from relatively small magnitude events. Long period hazard, and hazard for all periods calculated for low probabilities are minimally affected by the choice of Mmin. When hazard values are applied to liquefaction analysis or to the design of short-period structures, especially non-brittle ones, it appears one has to decide whether the true "scientific" hazard (contributions from all earthquakes) or an "engineering" hazard from earthquakes larger than a minimum-magnitude cutoff is appropriate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".