MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1860026285 · doi:10.1002/eqe.2541

Data‐driven post‐earthquake rapid structural safety assessment

2015· article· en· W1860026285 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James A. Goulet, Clotaire Michel, Armen Der Kiureghian

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Scale (ratio)EngineeringComputer scienceScalabilityForensic engineeringCivil engineeringGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Earthquake‐prone cities are exposed to important societal and financial losses. An important part of these losses stems from the inability to use structures as shelters or for generating economic activity after the event of an earthquake. The inability to use structures is not only due to collapse or damage; it is also due to the lack of knowledge about their safety state, which prohibits their normal use. Because a diagnosis is required for thousands of structures, city‐scale safety assessment requires solutions that are economically sustainable and scalable. Data‐driven algorithms supported by sensing technologies have the potential to solve this challenge. Several ambient vibration monitoring studies of buildings, before and after earthquakes, have shown that the extent of damage in a building is correlated with a decrease in the natural frequency. However, the observed worldwide data may not be representative of specific cities due to factors such as construction type, quality, material, and age. In this paper, we propose a framework that is able to progressively learn the relationship between frequency shift and damage state as a small number of buildings in a city are inspected after an earthquake, and to use that information to predict the safety state of uninspected but monitored buildings. The capacity of the proposed framework to learn and perform prognosis is validated by applying the methodology to a city with 1000 buildings having simulated frequency shifts and damage states. 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207