MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312385590 · doi:10.4095/330927

Scientific basis of Canada's first public national seismic risk model

2022· report· en· W4312385590 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tiegan Hobbs, J M Journeay, A S Rao, Luís Martins, Philip LeSueur, Michal Kolaj, M Simionato, Vítor Silva, Marco Pagani, Kendra Johnson, Drew Rotheram-Clarke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic riskFragilityDisaster risk reductionPreparednessSeismic hazardVulnerability (computing)Probabilistic logicUrban seismic riskGovernment (linguistics)GeographyEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural Resources Canada, in partnership with the Global Earthquake Model Foundation, has prepared a public Canadian Seismic Risk Model to support disaster risk reduction efforts across industry and all levels of government, and to aid in Canada's adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Developing this model has involved the creation of a national exposure inventory, Canadian specific fragility and vulnerability curves, and adjustment of the Canadian Seismic Hazard Model which forms the basis for the seismic provisions of the National Building Code of Canada. Using the Global Earthquake Model Foundation's OpenQuake Engine (OQ), risk modelling is completed using both deterministic and probabilistic risk calculations, under baseline and simulated retrofit conditions. Output results are available in all settled regions of Canada, at the scale of a neighbourhood or smaller. We report on expected shaking damage to buildings, financial losses, fatalities, and other impacts such as housing disruption and the generation of debris. This paper documents the technical details of the modelling approach including a description of novel datasets in use, as well as preliminary results for a magnitude 9.0 earthquake on the Cascadia megathrust and nation-wide 500 year expected probabilistic losses. These kinds of results, such as earthquake scenario impacts, loss exceedance curves, and annual average losses, provide a quantitative base of evidence for decision making at local, regional, and national levels.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→