Nonlinear Response Potential of Real versus Simulated Ground Motions for the 11 March 2011 Tohoku‐oki Earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the nonlinear response potential of generic inelastic single‐degree‐of‐freedom systems subjected to three sets of ground motion records for the 2011 Tohoku main shock. The compared record sets, all for the same sites, are: (1) observed accelerograms at 48 KiK‐net strong motion stations; (2) time‐histories simulated from the empirical Green's function method; and (3) time‐histories simulated using the stochastic finite‐fault method (with multiple sub‐events). The adopted techniques can capture a realistic source rupture process involving multiple strong motion generation areas in simulations. Statistical analysis of computed peak ductility demands for the three record sets is conducted via cloud and stripe analyses. Results indicate that for the 2011 Tohoku main shock, different record sets produce similar average trends of the inelastic seismic demand curves. This conclusion is applicable to both cloud and stripe approaches and to structural systems with degrading and pinching hysteresis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".