MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172906158 · doi:10.4095/328364

An earthquake scenario catalogue for Canada: a guide to using scenario hazard and risk results

2021· report· en· W3172906158 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tiegan Hobbs, J M Journeay, Drew Rotheram-Clarke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardComputer scienceGeographySeismologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the national Canadian Seismic Risk Model, a collection of earthquake hazard and risk scenarios has been created and will be documented in a series of Open Files and other publications. This first document will help a user in interpreting and understanding raw scenario outputs, without any technical, pre-requisite skills. A future document will help orient a technical user seeking to run their own earthquake scenarios, by introducing the input files and a strategy for running the OpenQuake (OQ) Engine for Canadian earthquake scenarios. Other documents will help nontechnical users interact with the model and understand how it can be used for disaster risk reduction in Canada. Following the first release of scenarios, tentatively scheduled for June 2021, all files will be accessed through the OpenDRR GitHub project page as they become available: <https://github.com/OpenDRR/earthquake-scenarios>. The raw scenario outputs, formatted as comma-separated value (csv) files, contain information about economic losses, building damage, casualties, and other disruptive impacts. All of the impacts are referenced to a unique asset ID, which can be tied to census geographic divisions or latitude/longitude coordinates for plotting. This paper documents all outputs of these models with sufficient detail for a user to begin exploring the results.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207