Mapping Vertical Urban Growth in Mexico City in a Seismic Risk Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the physical phenomenon known as resonance, the damages caused by the earthquakes of 1985 and 2017 in Mexico City have been strongly related to the number of storeys of collapsed buildings given the lacustrine nature of this territory.In spite of the apparent relationship between location, land value, building investment, urban planning and seismic risk, there has not been an attempt to correlate these variables to continue understanding the vulnerability of this city, and the way in which certain cadastral and urban planning instruments have been eventually increasing the risk.Therefore, this work correlate and map the mentioned variables and their changes in a period time from 2002 to 2012.Considering urban corridors as the sample, the results show that building codes, planning instruments and real estate trends have been implemented in a contradictory way.One the one hand, seismic zoning has been more precise in time.On the other hand, urban planning and real estate investments have been promoting densification in unstable soil.Therefore, future formulation of urban policies should be in consonance to seismic zones, without forgetting that seismic zoning and vertical growth are not a static phenomenon but a continuous one.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".