Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the North China Plain Earthquake Belt: Sensitivity of Seismic Source Models and Ground Motion Prediction Equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a multi-source data fusion method was proposed for the development of a Hybrid seismic hazard model (HSHM) in China by using publicly available data of the 5th Seismic Ground Motion Parameter Zoning Map (NSGM) and historical seismic catalogues and integrating with modern ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs). This model incorporates the characteristics of smoothed seismicity and areal sources for regional seismic hazard assessment. The probabilistic seismic hazard for the North China Plain earthquake belt was investigated through sensitivity analysis related to the seismicity model and GMPEs. The analysis results indicate that the Hybrid model can produce a consistent result with the NSGM model in many cases. However, the NSGM model tends to overestimate hazard values in locations where no major events have occurred and underestimate hazard values in locations where major events have occurred. The Hybrid model can mitigate the degree of such biases. Compared to the modern GMPEs, the GMPE with epicentral distance measures significantly underestimate the seismic hazard under near-field and large-magnitude scenarios. In addition, a comparison of the uniform hazard spectra (UHS) obtained by the models, with China’s design spectrum, shows that the current design spectrum is more conservative than the calculated UHS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".