MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414972843 · doi:10.1177/87552930251377731

Agent-based simulation of the effectiveness of policies for the adoption of seismic retrofits

2025· article· en· W4414972843 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rodrigo Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRetrofittingSeismic retrofitVulnerability (computing)Seismic riskEarthquake scenarioPromotion (chess)Urban seismic risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent developments in engineering design have resulted in substantial improvements to the seismic performance of new buildings. However, buildings constructed before recent upgrades to the seismic regulations comprise a large portion of the existing building inventory. Buildings with insufficient seismic capacity are susceptible to extensive damage or collapse during an earthquake, contributing to economic losses and casualties. Effective risk mitigation strategies such as seismic retrofitting could potentially address the vulnerability of the existing building stock to earthquake hazards. Yet, seismic retrofit programs suffer from low take-up rates. Thus, identifying barriers for seismic retrofit adoption and strategies to increase take-up rates can help mitigate losses from future events. This study develops an agent-based model to assess homeowner response to multiple seismic retrofit promotion strategies. The simulation framework is applied to a case study of owner-occupied, residential-detached dwellings in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, to evaluate the effectiveness of various potential seismic retrofit promotion strategies. These strategies are compared regarding the number of adopters and the reduction in total annual losses to residential building structures and contents in the City of Vancouver. The main barriers to adopting retrofit measures among different income groups are identified, and appropriate interventions to target those barriers are suggested. Modeling the impact of policies allows policymakers to evaluate their effects and fine-tune the policy interventions before their implementation.

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 score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207