MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of rapid visual screening form for Nepal based on the data collected from - its 2015 earthquake

2019· article· en· W2986528805 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Natural disasterOrdinal regressionPlan (archaeology)GeographyRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementBusinessComputer securityEnvironmental scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An earthquake on the 25th April 2015 in Nepal caused more than 9,000 deaths and 22,000 causalities. The main reason for such huge casualties is the lack of earthquake awareness and poor construction practices. With a large number of vulnerable houses, Nepal faces a huge risk from future earthquakes, due to the recent construction in urban areas of poorly designed and constructed buildings. Such unplanned and haphazard growth will be potentially dangerous from natural events like earthquakes. A vulnerability map gives the exact location of sites where people, natural environments and or properties are at risk due to a potentially catastrophic event. This will allow them to decide on mitigating measures to prevent or reduce loss of life, injury and environmental consequences before a disaster occurs. While Rapid Visual screening is a classical method of preliminary vulnerability study, it is one of the most economical, reliable, simple and efficient methods to determine the vulnerability level of buildings. The most known rapid visual screening methods have been developed in countries of high seismic risk such as the USA, Japan, Indonesia, New Zealand, India and Canada and are briefly described in this paper. The main objective of this paper with the help of ordinal regression is to calculate variables of damage grade model in a rapid visual screening form. This is useful to identify vulnerable and non-vulnerable buildings very quickly, and help make a plan for the implementation of a disaster risk mitigation program. Based on SPSS Statistics Software, an ordinal regression method was used to model the relationship between outcome variables. The analysis was performed by employing a database after the 25th April Gorkha earthquake of 2015. Preparing RVS special features of buildings in Nepal, have been given due consideration, and were evaluated for adherence of age, plan configuration, position, land surface condition, plinth area, building height, floor count, foundation types, ground floor types, roof types, condition, are highly significant parameters in analysing the vulnerability of them during an earthquake.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.191 · 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