MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6942470723 · doi:10.14288/1.0394284

Quantifying Basin Amplification in Southwest BC from Simulated M9 Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes

2020· article· en· W6942470723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubductionStructural basinSeismic hazardSedimentary basinGround motionHazardMagnitude (astronomy)Basin and range topography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Southwest British Columbia has the potential to experience large-magnitude earthquakes generated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Buildings in Metro Vancouver are particularly vulnerable to these earthquakes because the region lies above the Georgia sedimentary basin, which can amplify the intensity of earthquake ground motions. Studies of recorded ground motions and simulations have shown that deep sedimentary basins can greatly increase the intensity of earthquake ground motions at medium and long periods. Earthquake design provisions in Canada neglect basin amplification and the consequences of accounting for these effects are uncertain. By leveraging physics-based simulations of a suite of M9 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake scenarios, this paper develops site-specific and period-dependent basin amplification factors throughout Metro Vancouver. The M9 simulations, which explicitly account for basin amplification, are benchmarked against ground motion models (GMMs), i.e. BC Hydro, which neglect such effects. The results indicate that for sites outside the basin, the empirical and simulated seismic hazard estimates are consistent. However, for sites within the basin and periods in the range of 1 to 4 s, GMMs significantly underestimate the hazard. The simulated M9 ground motions are also benchmarked against probabilistic estimates of the hazard from the 2015 National Building Code of Canada. Four different hazard levels are considered: 2%, 5%, 10% and 40% probability of exceedance in 50 years. At sites within the Georgia basin, the M9 simulations, which have a return period of approximately 500 years, far exceed the 10% in 50-year probabilistic estimates of the hazard. The proposed basin amplification factors vary across the region as a function of basin depth, reaching values as high as 9.2 at a 2 s period. The proposed factors are intended for use in design until basin amplification is explicitly considered within Canada’s national 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→