MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386223821 · doi:10.1007/s10518-023-01758-z

The December 2020 magnitude (Mw) 6.4 Petrinja earthquake, Croatia: seismological aspects, emergency response and impacts

2023· article· en· W4386223821 on OpenAlexaff
Josip Atalić, Marija Demšić, Maja Baniček, Mario Uroš, Iva Dasović, Snježan Prevolnik, Alen Kadić, Marta Šavor Novak, Miroslav Nastev

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Earthquake Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersHrvatska Zaklada za Znanost
KeywordsMasonryUnreinforced masonry buildingEpicenterCapital cityLandslideEmergency responseForensic engineeringForeshockSeismologyAftershockGeologyCivil engineeringGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On December 29, 2020, nine months after the March Mw 5.4 Zagreb earthquake and amidst the COVID-19 lockdown, a devastating Mw 6.4 earthquake struck near the town of Petrinja, about 50 km SE from the country’s capital Zagreb. It was preceded by the Mw 4.9 foreshock from the day before. The main shock claimed 7 fatalities and caused widespread damage. Historical centers of nearby cities with invaluable heritage buildings were significantly affected as were the many residential buildings, built mainly of unreinforced masonry. Damage was observed as far as 60 km from the epicenter. This paper summarizes the seismological aspects of the Mw 6.4 Petrinja earthquake, the emergency response and the main impacts to people and buildings. The description and findings are based on the field observations and a series of post-earthquake activities led by the team of the Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb. Typical damage to buildings and usability data are presented with examples based on 50,000 inspection results. By far the most affected were the unreinforced masonry buildings, followed by confined masonry, whereas reinforced concrete buildings were the least affected. The total direct and indirect losses are estimated to 4.8 billion EUR. The provided information represents a useful basis and impetus for improving emergency action and long-term disaster reduction plans in other regions with similar building exposure and seismotectonic settings.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Earthquake EngineeringSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207