MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1855747778 · doi:10.1002/eqe.2606

Stability of the time‐domain analysis method including a frequency‐dependent soil–foundation system

2015· article· en· W1855747778 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStability (learning theory)Time domainFrequency domainRepresentation (politics)Electrical impedanceNonlinear systemFoundation (evidence)Domain (mathematical analysis)Function (biology)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)EngineeringMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A number of methods have been proposed that utilize the time‐domain transformations of frequency‐dependent dynamic impedance functions to perform a time‐history analysis. Though these methods have been available in literature for a number of years, the methods exhibit stability issues depending on how the model parameters are calibrated. In this study, a novel method is proposed with which the stability of a numerical integration scheme combined with time‐domain representation of a frequency‐dependent dynamic impedance function can be evaluated. The method is verified with three independent recursive parameter models. The proposed method is expected to be a useful tool in evaluating the potential stability issue of a time‐domain analysis before running a full‐fledged nonlinear time‐domain analysis of a soil–structure system in which the dynamic impedance of a soil–foundation system is represented with a recursive parameter model. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it