SITUACIÓN DE LAS TÉCNICAS DE CONTROL DE RESPUESTA SÍSMICA EN COLOMBIA (STATUS OF SEISMIC RESPONSE CONTROL TECHNIQUES IN COLOMBIA)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo se presenta un análisis del estado actual del uso de las técnicas de control de respuesta sísmica en edificaciones colombianas. Se identifican las principales tecnologías utilizadas en el mundo, se muestra el resultado de una encuesta realizada a ingenieros diseñadores de estructuras, con el fin de detectar el grado de aceptación de estas técnicas en Colombia, y se exponen las principales razones por las cuales no han tenido aplicación significativa en el país. Los resultados de la encuesta revelan que Colombia todavía está lejos de la vanguardia en el uso de técnicas de control de respuesta sísmica y que las entidades y profesionales involucrados en el proyecto de edificaciones desconocen estas técnicas o desconfían de sus ventajas tanto económicas como estructurales. Finalmente, se invita, por medio de experiencias en otros países, a considerar estas técnicas en el diseño estructural de edificaciones colombianas.Abstract: This paper presents general aspects of the present situation of the use of seismic response-control techniques in Colombian buildings. The most prevalent techniques used worldwide are identified, and the results of a survey conducted among Colombian structural design engineers aimed at detecting some of the reasons why these techniques have not had a significant applicability in the country are presented. The results of the survey reveal that Colombia is still far from being a leading country in the application of seismic response control techniques, and that most entities and practitioners involved in building planning either do not know these techniques or are not well aware of economical benefits as well as improved structural performance. Finally, based on experiences gained in other countries, the use of these techniques in structural design for Colombia buildings is encouraged.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it