Agent‐based model for post‐earthquake housing recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A framework of agent‐based models for housing recovery is presented and used to investigate post‐earthquake recovery in the City of Vancouver, Canada. Housing recovery is modeled for a portfolio of buildings, contrasting with the practice of assessing the reconstruction of buildings in isolation. Thus, the presented approach better captures the effect of competition for resources, infrastructure disruptions, and socioeconomic factors on recovery. The analyses include models for damage, inspection, financing, power infrastructure, and labor/materials for repairs. The presented approach is applied to simulate the recovery of 114,832 residential buildings in 22 neighborhoods in Vancouver. Results indicate that recovery after a strong earthquake will take more than three years. The density of old and rented buildings, and the income and immigration status of the homeowners are shown to be good predictors of the speed of recovery for a neighborhood. Mitigation measures are compared and it is shown that retrofitting the most physically vulnerable buildings or doubling the available workforce are effective at reducing housing recovery times. It is demonstrated that the equity in recovery between low and high socioeconomic status homeowners is improved if mitigation measures are implemented. The results presented in this article can inform disaster recovery plans and mitigation actions in Vancouver and similar communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".