MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309121618 · doi:10.1061/9780784484449.041

Understanding the Consequences of Wellington’s Infrastructure Vulnerability to a Major Earthquake

2022· article· en· W4309121618 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLifelines 2022 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical infrastructureInterdependenceResilience (materials science)Vulnerability (computing)StakeholderNatural hazardGovernment (linguistics)Variety (cybernetics)Stakeholder engagementEnvironmental planningVulnerability assessmentComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityPsychological resilienceGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wellington Lifelines Group (WeLG) is comprised of the lifeline utilities serving the Wellington region of New Zealand. They share a collective understanding that Wellington’s infrastructure is vulnerable to natural hazards, which was gained from previous studies based on a variety of modelling and expert opinion approaches. These initial studies provided a foundation for deeper analysis to be undertaken around the vulnerability of the region’s infrastructure to earthquakes. The focus was on the likely damage states, interdependencies, and direct and wider economic consequences of a potential major earthquake in the region. The in-depth study used computer modelling and focused stakeholder engagement to quantify the improved resilience and economic benefit of the construction of a package of infrastructure upgrades. The study informs consideration of the mitigations that could be applied to address the core issues—short-term (emergency planning works), medium term (policy change at central government level), and long-term (the potential construction of new, resilient, infrastructure). This paper outlines this WeLG project, including the objectives, process, and intended outcomes.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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