MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395455662 · doi:10.1080/17499518.2024.2346656

Probabilistic earthquake-tsunami financial risk evaluation for the District of Tofino, British Columbia, Canada

2024· article· en· W4395455662 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katsuichiro Goda

Bibliographic record

VenueGeorisk Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsProbabilistic logicSeismologyGeographyFinanceGeologyBusinessStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Southwestern British Columbia in Canada has a high likelihood of facing significant earthquake threats in the future. It is exposed to significant seismic and tsunami hazards, originating from the Cascadia subduction zone and shallow crustal and deep inslab earthquakes. This study presents a new probabilistic earthquake-tsunami loss model for the Cascadia subduction zone by focusing on the District of Tofino, British Columbia. The earthquake occurrence and rupture models for the Cascadia subduction zone are developed by incorporating the time-dependency of earthquake occurrence and by adopting a stochastic source modelling approach, which allows for consideration of heterogeneous earthquake slip distributions. The results produce single-hazard and multi-hazard exceedance probability loss curves for earthquakes and tsunamis from the Cascadia subduction zone. In addition, earthquake risks due to other seismic sources are integrated with the multi-hazard loss curves due to the Cascadia events. In this way, a complete financial exposure from all major seismic and tsunami sources is evaluated. These loss curves can be used for determining the insurance rates for multi-hazard and multi-source risk coverage. The results are beneficial for providing more risk financing options via insurance against the future Cascadia and other seismic events.

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 score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeorisk Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and GeohazardsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207