Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kent12)
    The ZigZag booklet is swinging in that direction from what I have done, there is quite a bit on how it was weaker than the Dargield quake yet did more damage


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    i thirdly agree with this, but im kinda confused on the impacts and reponses or the darfiled quake compared to the Christchurch one, cause everytime i type in google 'darfield quake' it comes up with the Christchurch quake... so im not sure which impacts is which
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You need to split the AIB up into themes.

    For example,

    -Elements of Prediction/Future Earthquakes// Movement.
    -Relationships between frequency, energy etc (that graph isn't in there for no reason, especially one as difficult to comprehend as that.
    -Connections with other seismic and non-seismic events. P1, P2 + P3.
    Effects of the earthquake- Why were the effects worse in Christchurch, than they were in Darfield and other earthquakes? (( On further research, they have given us a website of pictures of buildings. It clearly looks as though there will be something on effects.))
    -And finally, should people remain in quake zones.

    Those are the themes that I've managed to get.


    Oh, has anyone managed to find the map
    "showing the best estimates of movement around the fault", the second bit of further research???


    When typing in the www it just goes straight to the website homepage. Which map is it? Thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HYPERbol)

    Oh, has anyone managed to find the map [/B]"showing the best estimates of movement around the fault", the second bit of further research???


    When typing in the www it just goes straight to the website homepage. Which map is it? Thanks
    Hi, try this link http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Scien...e/Hidden-fault again.

    It should go to the correct page about hidden faults and I think the map they mean is the second one and it explains the fault movement in the paragraph above it. I'm not sure though so i've also been looking at the very top map just in case x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks, thats different from the address they've given isn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    would anyone amazing be able to talk through which is the best way to present P2, and if you compared P1 and P2 would you just use spearman's rank? would be so helpful!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by conniemuir)
    would anyone amazing be able to talk through which is the best way to present P2, and if you compared P1 and P2 would you just use spearman's rank? would be so helpful!!
    Hey! My teacher has been really helpful and has asked us to do many things for the AIB unfortunately I've been super busy with other exams and since I just finished yesterday I'm finally using my time to prepare for this one on Friday since it is my last exam!

    But anyways she's asked us to do:

    - A fact file on the Christchurch Feb 2011 earthquake and on the Darfield Sept 2010 earthquake.
    - The reliability of the sources like the insurance company Munich Re - look through the website
    - We've had to research how prepared New Zealand is for an earthquake - how have they coped with it and what they will do to prepare for future case studies
    - Look up articles on each natural disaster to support and increase in global warming; e.g. Storms increase global warming
    - Look through the USGS website
    - Find out what responses took place for the 2011 earthquake

    This is what we had to do for each of the figures:
    - 4 scatter diagrams for figure P1 - one for each section of the bars
    - a bar graph for figure P2
    - Spearman's rank with figure P1 and P2
    - Spearman's rank with figure P3 and P4

    I've done the bar graph for Figure P2 and Spearman's rank for P2, I think some girls in my class have done the Spearman's and I might ask for a copy because I think they showed that there was a correlation.

    I'm pretty sure she gave us more to do but I'm not too sure...I have a lunch time session now so if we do anything else I'll let you all know if you want Hope this has helped!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gooby)
    Hey! My teacher has been really helpful and has asked us to do many things for the AIB unfortunately I've been super busy with other exams and since I just finished yesterday I'm finally using my time to prepare for this one on Friday since it is my last exam!

    But anyways she's asked us to do:

    - A fact file on the Christchurch Feb 2011 earthquake and on the Darfield Sept 2010 earthquake.
    - The reliability of the sources like the insurance company Munich Re - look through the website
    - We've had to research how prepared New Zealand is for an earthquake - how have they coped with it and what they will do to prepare for future case studies
    - Look up articles on each natural disaster to support and increase in global warming; e.g. Storms increase global warming
    - Look through the USGS website
    - Find out what responses took place for the 2011 earthquake

    This is what we had to do for each of the figures:
    - 4 scatter diagrams for figure P1 - one for each section of the bars
    - a bar graph for figure P2
    - Spearman's rank with figure P1 and P2
    - Spearman's rank with figure P3 and P4

    I've done the bar graph for Figure P2 and Spearman's rank for P2, I think some girls in my class have done the Spearman's and I might ask for a copy because I think they showed that there was a correlation.

    I'm pretty sure she gave us more to do but I'm not too sure...I have a lunch time session now so if we do anything else I'll let you all know if you want Hope this has helped!
    Thanks for this! but can you explain how to do spearmans rank? cause ive never got taught before on how to do it, thanks
    nvm i found out how to do it now :P

    But for spearman's rank, its between two variables, are you doing it between the global hottest years with the number of disasters
    or
    are you doing global hottest years against each of the different events (climatio, hydro etc...)?

    Also theres like 30+ data for each, you gonna do it for all? gonna be a pain to do the rank...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is it bad that I have no idea what chi squared is, or how to do spearman's rank, and I can't really remember how to do Mann Wittney U either... Also, how do you interpret P7/ say much about it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary)
    Thanks for this! but can you explain how to do spearmans rank? cause ive never got taught before on how to do it, thanks
    nvm i found out how to do it now :P

    But for spearman's rank, its between two variables, are you doing it between the global hottest years with the number of disasters
    or
    are you doing global hottest years against each of the different events (climatio, hydro etc...)?

    Also theres like 30+ data for each, you gonna do it for all? gonna be a pain to do the rank...
    Well for P1 and P2 I did the Spearman's from the years shown in P2... I'm not sure if I've done it correctly I can find out for you tonight when I ask someone in my class And I'm gonna ask my teacher to go over it tomorrow again just so I know what all this means! This is definitely my weakest point in the AIB I'm pretty confident with the earthquake information.
    I also did a Spearman's for P3 and P4 which was a pain! because I did rank all 30 sets of data! It's pretty easy to do a Spearman's if you have all the numbers but with these graphs it was really hard to pick out and it was just an estimation - which in the exam if you talk about it, it's worth mentioning that results aren't accurate since the data was hard to interpret.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just did the spearman's rank for the data on figure P1 and figure P2 and I found a very weak negative correlation (-0.423), I'm pretty sure I'm wrong though, might need someone to check that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baldwin94)
    I just did the spearman's rank for the data on figure P1 and figure P2 and I found a very weak negative correlation (-0.423), I'm pretty sure I'm wrong though, might need someone to check that.
    I got -0.36 for mine so not too far off i guess
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gooby)
    Well for P1 and P2 I did the Spearman's from the years shown in P2... I'm not sure if I've done it correctly I can find out for you tonight when I ask someone in my class And I'm gonna ask my teacher to go over it tomorrow again just so I know what all this means! This is definitely my weakest point in the AIB I'm pretty confident with the earthquake information.
    I also did a Spearman's for P3 and P4 which was a pain! because I did rank all 30 sets of data! It's pretty easy to do a Spearman's if you have all the numbers but with these graphs it was really hard to pick out and it was just an estimation - which in the exam if you talk about it, it's worth mentioning that results aren't accurate since the data was hard to interpret.
    Alright cheers! im doing a spearmans rank on p3-p4 atm for all like 30+ data, its killing me atm....

    when im done we can compare our values
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary)
    Alright cheers! im doing a spearmans rank on p3-p4 atm for all like 30+ data, its killing me atm....

    when im done we can compare our values
    Well you have to do from 1980 to 2009!! because Spearman's can only be done to a maximum of 30 values! sorry should've said it before hah just realised that's what I've done on mine
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gooby)
    Well you have to do from 1980 to 2009!! because Spearman's can only be done to a maximum of 30 values! sorry should've said it before hah just realised that's what I've done on mine
    apprently having more than 30 dosent matter, but its just that it takes time... but i dunno
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gooby)
    Well you have to do from 1980 to 2009!! because Spearman's can only be done to a maximum of 30 values! sorry should've said it before hah just realised that's what I've done on mine
    Ok i got a value of 0.333 between p3 - p4 :O

    fml... the maximum value is 30.... I HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN D:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For item 2 and the graph what are people doing with it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I got a correlation of 0.33804 so 0.34 to 2.d.p
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ok did it again and got 0.317 for p3 - p4

    basically theres a weak correlation between the amount of earthquakes and seismic energy released HOWEVER the higher peaks since 1994 in Figure P4 can be explained by the increase in the amount of magnitude 8+ earthquakes which suggests that its actaully the magnitude of the earthquakes that determine the energy released and not the numbers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  Spearmans.png
Views: 1002
Size:  289.0 KB

    Not sure if you can see it, but I thought I would help out. Just done Spearman's rank for P1 & P2.
    The correlation is -0.159669503 so:
    No linear correlation or slight negative correlation if any. Issues with this calculation: You have to exclude 2010 because you don't have the number of natural disasters for that year, and also the number of natural disasters are estimates as the scale on P1 is not small enough. Secondly the data from P1 is from a German insurance company which may be bias on unreliable as their bounds or collection methods aren't clear.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chyavan)
    Name:  Spearmans.png
Views: 1002
Size:  289.0 KB

    Not sure if you can see it, but I thought I would help out. Just done Spearman's rank for P1 & P2.
    The correlation is -0.159669503 so:
    No linear correlation or slight negative correlation if any. Issues with this calculation: You have to exclude 2010 because you don't have the number of natural disasters for that year, and also the number of natural disasters are estimates as the scale on P1 is not small enough. Secondly the data from P1 is from a German insurance company which may be bias on unreliable as their bounds or collection methods aren't clear.
    After working out spearman's rank, dont you have to like match it up against a significane table/critical value table or w/e ?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.