Cited by 2Disaster Management and ResilienceEarthquake and Disaster Impact StudiesSeismology and Earthquake Studies

Perception of earthquake and analysis of its impact factors based on interpretable machine learning: data from the 6 august 2023 earthquake in Pingyuan County, China

Zhang, Erhao, Ding, Ning, Yang, Lixuan, Wang, Yang, Shi, Jiguang, Xu, Yingjian·2025·Natural Hazards

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11069-024-07073-3

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, E., Ding, N., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Shi, J., & Xu, Y.
Affiliations
China People's Public Security University (CN)
Corresponding author
Ding, Ning
Venue
Natural Hazards
Published
2024-12-11
Volume
121
Issue
6
Pages
6801-6829
ISSN
  • 0921-030X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0840
OpenAlex
W4405269964
Cited by
2
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 2
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Natural Hazards (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (72274208)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Earthquake and Disaster Impact Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Seismology and Earthquake Studies
Keywords
self-protective behavior, individual differences, age and sex differences, earthquake magnitude, CatBoost, SHAP, model interpretability, seismic risk awareness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review