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 OpenAlexaff
Richard Mowll, Vinod K. Sadashiva, Anthony Delaney, Fran Wilde, C. B. Crampton, Ayolt Wiertsema, Craig Muirhead

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifelines 2022Same topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207