MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115718851 · doi:10.71846/18-wcee-3000

THE RISK OF EARTHQUAKE-TRIGGERED LANDSLIDES IN QUICK CLAY REGIONS OF EASTERN CANADA

2025· article· en· W7115718851 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Conference of Earthquake Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideLiquefactionSoil liquefactionSlope failureSiltGlacial period

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quick clay regions are areas where soil is predominantly composed of clay particles that have been deposited in marine or glacial environments. These types of clays are unique as they can liquefy suddenly and slide without warning when they are disturbed, such as during an earthquake. Quick clay landslide can cause significant damage to properties and infrastructure. Historically some areas in Canada, specifically in Quebec and eastern Ontario, have experienced quick clay landslides. This study quantifies the impact of liquefaction and landslide on regional earthquake loss estimates for eastern Canada. Using a hypothetical portfolio of buildings and utilizing an earthquake catastrophe model for Canada, the study presents a probabilistic estimate of losses from shake, liquefaction, and landslide in Quebec. Results indicate that liquefaction and landslide increase average annual loss for this notional exposure by about 10% each. Also, it was found that the inclusion of quick clay increases landslide average annual loss for this notional exposure by 78%.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Conference of Earthquake EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207