Seismic Risk Assessment of Nonengineered Residential Buildings: State of the Practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The poor socioeconomic conditions in developing countries often lead to poorly constructed residential buildings that are particularly vulnerable to damage during an earthquake. A review of available literature carried out as part of a larger research program highlights the scarcity of existing fragility curves for the wide typology of nonengineered residential buildings around the world. Furthermore, fragility curves derived using empirical data are almost nonexistent due to the lack of postearthquake damage data and insufficient ground motion recordings in developing countries. The diversity in construction techniques and material quality in developing countries, particularly for nonengineered residential buildings, cannot be sufficiently represented through simplified or idealized analytical models. Therefore, the use of empirical based fragility curves is considered to be a well-suited approach for assessing the seismic risk levels for nonengineered residential buildings in developing countries. This paper presents a review and evaluation of existing seismic risk assessment studies and state-of-the-practice as it pertains to nonengineered buildings, and subsequently proposes the use of attenuation-based USGS ground motion and shaking intensity maps and geographic information system damage information to derive relevant fragility curves. The USGS ground motion and shaking intensity maps are proposed as they are developed using a consistent robust methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it