MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246532604 · doi:10.4095/296439

Risk map atlas: maps from the earthquake risk study for the District of North Vancouver

2015· report· en· W4246532604 on OpenAlexaffabout
C L Wagner, J M Journeay, N L Hastings, Jorge A. Prieto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlas (anatomy)Earthquake scenarioGeographyNatural hazardUrban seismic riskHazardScale (ratio)Seismic hazardSeismic riskRisk assessmentEnvironmental resource managementCartographyCivil engineeringForensic engineeringEnvironmental planningSeismologyEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural Resources Canada, as part of its Public Safety Geoscience program, worked in cooperation with the District of North Vancouver (DNV) and other partners to develop and test methodologies that are appropriate for assessing earthquake risk at a municipal scale in Canada. The earthquake loss estimation software, Hazus-MH, was used to analyze the losses to buildings, infrastructure, and people in the District and to estimate the damage and injuries resulting from earthquakes. The initial analysis was repeated to show possible changes in outcome if buildings in the community were assumed to be retrofitted to modern building codes. This Risk Map Atlas provides a selection of maps and notes showing the inventory of buildings and infrastructure, hazard parameters, and results from the study. The Atlas is intended to help similar Canadian communities in the development of an earthquake risk assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207