EVALUATING THE USE AND COMMUNICATION OF SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS: A CASE STUDY OF METRO VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Metro Vancouver region of southwestern British Columbia, Canada, is exposed to significant earthquake risk.Earthquake hazard has yet to be mapped to an effective scale in Metro Vancouver and so it is critical to generate comprehensive seismic hazard maps for the region.The Metro Vancouver Seismic Microzonation Project is tasked with the assessment and mapping of earthquake shaking hazard and liquefaction and landslide susceptibility hazards at a 1:25,000 scale.The detailed hazard information and data collected as part of this project, like most traditional hazard studies, is highly technical and unsuitable for the needs of intermediate users (e.g.regional planners and emergency managers).In this study we evaluate metrics and delivery format used to communicate seismic hazard information to intermediate users so it may be applied effectively in regional planning and emergency management strategies.Our methodology to evaluate effective communication of the seismic hazard products (GIS shapefiles and maps) involves a stakeholder workshop and online questionnaire survey.Existing microzonation maps for other regions in Canada are referenced throughout this consultation process and feedback is used as a benchmark to develop upon.A sequence of iterative discussion and consultation is necessary to determine the comprehensible metrics, desired interaction level and stylistic preferences to be used in final mapped products.Responses reiterate that the use of technical metrics is not effective in communicating hazard to intermediate users; separate map products are required for primary and intermediate users.Additionally, participants express importance of visual simplicity, open access to background data and interactive capabilities (e.g.GIS shapefiles).Feedback indicates that a lack of standardization leads to misinterpretation when comparing seismic microzonation maps of different regions; thus, results of this consultation process are integrated into a set of preliminary recommendations for producing seismic microzonation maps in a move towards standardization.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".