MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033341943 · doi:10.1193/052813eqs136m

Application of Isolation to High‐Rise Buildings: A Japanese Design Case Study through a U.S. Design Code Lens

2014· article· en· W2033341943 on OpenAlex
Tracy C. Becker, Shunji Yamamoto, Hiroki Hamaguchi, Masahiko Higashino, Masayoshi Nakashima

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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsolation (microbiology)Base isolationArchitectural engineeringPopularityCode (set theory)EngineeringBuilding codeBuilding designCivil engineeringStructural engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Base isolation of high‐rise buildings has been growing in popularity in Japan, yet it is uncommon in most of the world. While tall buildings already have long periods and thus lower input accelerations, the addition of isolation can decrease inter‐story drifts and greatly decrease floor acceleration, protecting building content. By protecting building content, high‐rises can be kept fully operational and occupiable after earthquakes. The Japanese design code has clearly outlined procedures for designing isolated high‐rises, facilitating the implementation of isolation; however, other design codes—and specifically the U.S. code—make the adoption of isolation difficult for these buildings. Using a design representative of typical isolated high‐rises in Japan, it is shown that while isolation is feasible under U.S. design levels, requirements are much more stringent, and some changes from the Japanese design would be required to make the design acceptable under the U.S. code.

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)0.000
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 score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.222 · 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