MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399810983 · doi:10.1007/s13753-024-00568-4

Seismic Risk Model for the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region, China: Considering Epistemic Uncertainty from the Seismic Hazard Models

2024· article· en· W4399810983 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Disaster Risk Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingChinaSeismic hazardUncertainty quantificationSeismologyHazardRisk modelSeismic riskGeologyEnvironmental scienceEconometricsGeographyStatisticsMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents a probabilistic seismic risk model for the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region in China. The model comprises a township-level residential building exposure model, a vulnerability model derived from the Chinese building taxonomy, and a regional probabilistic seismic hazard model. The three components are integrated by a stochastic event-based method of the OpenQuake engine to assess the regional seismic risk in terms of average annual loss and exceedance probability curve at the city, province, and regional levels. The novelty and uniqueness of this study are that a probabilistic seismic risk model for the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region in China is developed by considering the impact of site conditions and epistemic uncertainty from the seismic hazard model.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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