MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309152188 · doi:10.1061/9780784484449.030

Telecommunication Performance during Puebla Earthquake M7.1, 19 September 2017

2022· article· en· W4309152188 on OpenAlexaff
Alex K. Tang, Alexis Kwasinski

Bibliographic record

VenueLifelines 2022 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpicenterMexico cityMagnitude (astronomy)SeismologyGeologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2017 earthquake in Central Mexico (epicenter East of Ayutla, Mexico Earthquake) that terrorized Mexico City and Puebla occurred on the same month and day as the 1985 Michoacan, Mexico earthquake, which caused significant damage to lifelines in Mexico City. The official name of this earthquake is Puebla Earthquake. The differences between these two earthquakes are locations of the epicenter, the duration of strong shaking, and most importantly the magnitude. The 2017 earthquake epicenter was located about 150 km south-east of Mexico City, it happened at 13:14 local time and the magnitude was 7.1 with a duration of about 60 ss of strong motion. The 1985 earthquake epicenter was located about 330 km south of Mexico City, it happened at 07:17 local time and the magnitude was 8.0 with duration of 90 s of strong motion. Thus, all lifelines in Mexico City and areas around Puebla sustained various degrees of damage and service interruption. Electric power system experienced the most disruptions due to both substation damage and distribution system failures. Although the telecommunication system did not sustain much damage, the power system failures did cause some telecom service interruptions in areas with long duration power outages. Cellular messaging applications on smart phones reportedly were performing well when the voice call lines were saturated during the first day after the earthquake. There were scattered roads and bridges failures and also broken underground water pipelines. There was a report of liquid fuel tank failure but there was no report of cascade damage due to the tank failure. The airport was closed for a short time and there was a short section of the road around the airport terminal that cracked due to ground failure. Very minor damage was observed in the international airport terminal. There were also building failures and collapses including part of a school building. There were incidents of fire with one fire caused by gas tank explosion. Emergency services performed well. Therefore, lessons learned from the 1985 earthquake probably contributed to overall better telecommunication lifeline performance. There was no report of Central Office (CO) failures.

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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifelines 2022Same topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207