MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970274630 · doi:10.1193/1.2198873

Methodology for Site Classification Estimation Using Strong Ground Motion Data from the Chi‐Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake

2006· article· en· W1970274630 on OpenAlex
Vietanh Phung, Gail M. Atkinson, David T. Lau

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 Spectra · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGround motionBoreholeFault (geology)Strong ground motionSpectral accelerationSeismologyMotion (physics)GeodesyPeak ground accelerationTest siteRemote sensingComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ground motions of the Chi‐Chi, Taiwan, earthquake ( M w =7.6) were recorded at 420 strong‐motion stations, including 69 near‐fault sites. However, the site conditions of many stations are not available. Among 420 strong‐motion stations, the site conditions are known for only 87 stations, which were classified into four groups ( S 1 , S 2 , S 3 , and S 4 ) by using borehole data and some surface geology. This paper presents a methodology to estimate the missing site condition information at strong‐motion stations in Taiwan. The method is based on the shape of the 5% damped pseudo‐acceleration spectrum of the horizontal ground motion component normalized with respect to average PGA, where the classification scheme is developed using the data from the 87 stations for which the site conditions are known. Possible effects of soil nonlinearity, and distance to the fault on the classification are investigated. The results obtained from the proposed methodology are well correlated with the available known site classification information data. The methodology is then applied to estimate the site condition for the other 333 stations without known site classification. Our results are compared to previous results obtained based on interpretation of geologic maps and geomorphologic data. We find that the two approaches agree in 71% of the cases. We also tested the horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratio technique to estimate the site classification of other 333 strong‐motion stations. However, this technique resulted in lower accuracy than does the proposed technique based on the spectral shape of normalized response spectra.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.203 · 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