
doi: 10.1785/0120170008
handle: 11588/742829
The proper scientific interpretation of the seismic hazard estimates requires a probabilistic framework that admits epistemic uncertainties on aleatory variables. This is not straightforward because, to subjectivists, all probabilities are epistemic, whereas to frequentists, all probabilities are aleatory.We illustrate the inadequacy of purely subjectivist and purely frequentist interpretations of probability by examining the probabilistic meaning of the mean hazard. We advocate a unified approach based on experimental concepts that define aleatory variability in terms of exchangeable sequences of observations, and we show how experimental concepts allow testing of models based on expert opinion by frequentist methods. © 2017, Seismological Society of America. All rights reserved.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 26 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
