Reappraisal of the 2012 magnitude (M <sub>W</sub> ) 6.7 Negros Oriental (Philippines) earthquake intensity and ShakeMap generation by using ESI-2007 environmental effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The macroseismic intensity of the February 6, 2012, Negros Oriental earthquake (MW 6.7), which affected the islands of Negros and Cebu, central Philippines, has been reassessed in this study using the Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale (ESI-2007). This earthquake caused a ∼75-km-long surface rupture along a previously unmapped fault and resulted in extensive landslides, localized liquefaction, lateral spreading, a tsunami, and widespread damage to infrastructure near the epicentral area. Considering the widespread earthquake environmental effects (EEEs), ESI-2007 intensities were evaluated for 324 locations covering an area of approximately 1000 km2 within the Negros and Cebu Islands. A systematic comparison was conducted between the ESI-2007 scale and the traditional intensity scales (PHIVOLCS earthquake intensity scale (PEIS) and Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MM) along with the generation of an ESI-2007 shake map, which is solely based on site-specific ESI-2007 intensity values. According to the ESI-2007 scale, the epicentral intensity I0=X is assessed. This is two degrees higher than the intensity of the PEIS, and three degrees higher than the modified MM intensity provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The intensity difference may also be due to the lack of suitable observations of building damage data in this sparsely populated region of the Philippines. Comparison of the ShakeMap that was constructed using the ESI-2007 intensities with the PHIVOLCS and USGS ShakeMap suggests that the instrumental or structural damage-based intensity maps underestimate the seismic intensity for the 2012 Negros Oriental earthquake. The ESI-2007 ShakeMap presented in this work is pertinent for the assessment of future seismic risk associated with other earthquake generators in the vicinity of the islands of Negros and Cebu. It can be integrated with the PEIS or MM intensity scale to improve disaster management and planning, post-earthquake recovery efforts, and damage estimation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".