Earthquake risk communication in the capital regional district : a public awareness assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral histories corroborate modern seismological predictions that Vancouver Island and the Pacific Northwest are overdue for a major earthquake, expected to be up to a 9.0 on the Richter scale. Our collective understanding of earthquakes and the risks associated with them have evolved dramatically since the implementation of Canada’s first seismic design provisions in 1941. The Capital Regional District has yet to experience a damaging earthquake in living memory, but research strongly suggests that a large, >7.0 earthquake along the Cascadia fault line is likely in the coming decades. This project used a survey alongside anonymous interviews with key stakeholders to: \n1.\tgauge and enhance public awareness of earthquake risk and response plans \n2.\tidentify areas where disaster preparedness policies may not be achieving their goals \n3.\tdevelop policy recommendations based on project results and internationally analogous communities \nSurvey and interview results show that while some of the existing awareness programs are effective, most residents in the CRD remain unprepared for a damaging earthquake event. Results of this study show that existing earthquake risk communication seemingly fails to properly impress the severity of risk on residents within the Capital Regional District. Policy recommendations do not align with individual preparedness levels within the community – potentially leading to a dangerous situation should an earthquake strike.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".