Seismic Vulnerability Study Of HistoricalBuildings In Old Montreal: Overview AndPerspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a review of the vulnerability evaluation methods available to study a group of buildings in the historic Old Montreal district based on their structural characterisation. The seismic vulnerability of structures is one of the key elements, along with the seismic hazard, site effect, value and exposure, to determine the seismic risk associated to a group of buildings. The city of Montreal, in Eastern Canada, has an effective seismic zone of 3 and 4, respectively, which is qualified as moderate to high seismicity on a scale of 0 to 6. Therefore, there is a need to develop tools to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of existing constructed facilities. Montreal historic buildings constitute an important and valuable segment of these facilities. A comprehensive inventory of Old Montreal buildings and their structural characteristics led to the identification of the dominant types of structure: unreinforced masonry bearing wall structures and moment-resisting frame structures with infill masonry walls. A review of the existing procedures for the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of groups of buildings based on the European and North American experiences was carried out and procedures based on structural typology are considered as the most appropriate for this group of buildings along with the development of simplified models to obtain vulnerability functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".