Seismic microzonation mapping of Greater Vancouver based on various site classification metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the multi-year seismic microzonation mapping project for Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is to produce seismic hazard maps inclusive of local site effects, in particular seismic hazard specific to one-dimensional site response and three-dimensional Georgia sedimentary basin amplification, as well as liquefaction and landslide hazard potential. We explore the variability in key seismic site characterization measures most often used for seismic microzonation mapping to evaluate the impact on mapping and communication of seismic microzonation of Greater Vancouver. This study focuses on the comparison of seismic microzonation maps of Greater Vancouver based on up to three seismic site term parameters and their associated classification schemes: 1) the time-averaged shear-wave velocity (Vs) of the upper 30 m (Vs30) and associated Canadian National Building Code (NBC) site class; 2) Vs30-based site classification proposed for the updated Eurocode 8; 3) site period (T0) determined from microtremor site amplification spectra; and 4) a hybrid site classification based on T0 and the average Vs and thickness of soil. 810 Vs30 and 2,200 T0 values are determined to evaluate sub-regional differences in these important seismic site parameters in Greater Vancouver. We find that the seismic microzonation of Greater Vancouver depends on the chosen seismic site parameter (Vs30, T0, or a combination of parameters) and that classification schemes with greater class divisions are beneficial to communicating the great variability in seismic site conditions in Greater Vancouver. We recommend that either one hybrid classification map or two classification maps of Vs30 and T0 together are required for effective communication of the seismic microzonation of Greater Vancouver.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".