MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385493418 · doi:10.3389/feart.2023.1221234

Seismic microzonation mapping of Greater Vancouver based on various site classification metrics

2023· article· en· W4385493418 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sujan Raj Adhikari, Sheri Molnar, Jinfei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsSeismic microzonationSeismologyMicrotremorGeologySeismic hazardLiquefactionEarthquake scenarioUrban seismic riskWave velocityShear (geology)Geotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (Vs 30 ) and associated Canadian National Building Code (NBC) site class; 2) Vs 30 -based site classification proposed for the updated Eurocode 8; 3) site period (T 0 ) determined from microtremor site amplification spectra; and 4) a hybrid site classification based on T 0 and the average Vs and thickness of soil. 810 Vs 30 and 2,200 T 0 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 (Vs 30 , T 0 , 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 Vs 30 and T 0 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207