MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229060194 · doi:10.1177/87552930221086304

Seismic risk assessment and mitigation analysis of large public school building portfolios in Metro Manila

2022· article· en· W4229060194 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Jeswani, Jack Wen Wei Guo, Constantin Christopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioSeismic riskRisk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Risk assessmentVulnerability (computing)Agency (philosophy)BusinessActuarial scienceComputer scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringFinanceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an integrated framework for portfolio seismic risk assessment. The framework includes a systematic approach to the collection and categorization of exposed assets, and a robust method that combines vulnerabilities of different levels of resolution, including detailed vulnerabilities based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P‐58 and REDi analyses, to produce efficient portfolio‐level assessment. The vulnerability information encodes risk information that directly addresses the decision‐support needs of stakeholders, including the benefits of seismic retrofit. The proposed framework is applied to a spatially distributed infrastructure portfolio composed of over 1000 public school buildings across Makati and Quezon City, in the Metro Manila region in Philippines, to demonstrate the value of portfolio‐level seismic risk mitigation strategies. This study illustrates that the proposed regional seismic risk assessment approach can provide more reliable regional risk assessments in a computationally efficient manner and is able to quantify different risk contributors and identify cost‐drivers that can be targeted for performance‐based risk management of large portfolios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207