MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387859733 · doi:10.3390/geohazards4040023

Influence of the 2020 Seismic Hazard Update on Residential Losses in Greater Montreal, Canada

2023· article· en· W4387859733 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Rosset, Xuejiao Long, Luc Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoHazards · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic hazardBuilding codeAlluviumReturn periodHazardSeismic riskSeismologyPopulationEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeologyCivil engineeringArchaeologyEngineeringFlood mythDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greater Montreal is situated in a region with moderate seismic activity and rests on soft ground deposits from the ancient Champlain Sea, as well as more recent alluvial deposits from the Saint Lawrence River. These deposits have the potential to amplify seismic waves, as demonstrated by past strong, and recent weak, earthquakes. Studies based on the 2015 National Seismic Hazard Model (SHM5) had estimated losses to residential buildings at 2% of their value for an event with a return period of 2475 years. In 2020, the seismic hazard model was updated (SHM6), resulting in more severe hazards for eastern Canada. This paper aims to quantify the impact of these changes on losses to residential buildings in Greater Montreal. Our exposure database includes population and buildings at the scale of dissemination areas (500–1000 inhabitants). Buildings are classified by occupancy and construction type and grouped into three building code levels based on year of construction. The value of buildings is obtained from property-valuation rolls and the content value is derived from insurance data. Damage and losses are calculated using Hazus software developed for FEMA. Losses are shown to be 53% higher than the SHM5 estimates.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoHazardsSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207