MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054147923 · doi:10.1002/eqe.38

Consistency of dynamic site response at Port Island

2001· article· en· W2054147923 on OpenAlex
Laurie G. Baise, Steven D. Glaser, T. Sugano

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 Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyForeshockEarthquake shaking tableAftershockSeismologyGeodesyConsistency (knowledge bases)Peak ground accelerationResponse analysisMagnitude (astronomy)AmplitudeGeotechnical engineeringGround motionEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract System identification (SI) methods are used to determine empirical Green's functions (EGF) for soil intervals at the Port Island Site in Kobe, Japan and in shake table model tests performed by the Port and Harbor Research Institute (PHRI) to emulate the site during the 17 January 1995 Hyogo‐ken Nanbu earthquake. The model form for the EGFs is a parametric auto‐regressive moving average (ARMA) model mapping the ground motions recorded at the base of a soil interval to the top of that interval, hence capturing the effect of the soil on the through‐passing wave. The consistency of site response at Port Island before, during, and after the mainshock is examined by application of small motion foreshock EGFs to incoming ground motions over these time intervals. The prediction errors (or misfits) for the foreshocks, the mainshock, and the aftershocks, are assessed to determine the extent of altered soil response as a result of liquefaction of the ground during the mainshock. In addition, the consistency of soil response between field and model test is verified by application of EGFs calculated from the shake table test to the 17 January input data. The prediction error is then used to assess the consistency of behaviour between the two cases. By using EGFs developed for small‐amplitude foreshock ground motions, ground motions were predicted for all intervals of the vertical array except those that liquefied with small error. Analysis of the post‐liquefied ground conditions implies that the site response gradually returns to a pre‐earthquake state. Site behaviour is found to be consistent between foreshocks and the mainshock for the native ground (below 16 m in the field) with a normalized mean square error (NMSE) of 0.080 and a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.5 g . When the soil actually liquefies (change of state), recursive models are needed to track the variable soil behaviour for the remainder of the shaking. The recursive models are shown to demonstrate consistency between the shake table tests and the field with a NMSE of 0.102 for the 16 m to surface interval that liquefied. The aftershock ground response was not modelled well with the foreshock EGF immediately after the mainshock (NMSE ranging from 0.37 to 0.92). One month after the mainshock, the prediction error from the foreshock modeled was back to the foreshock error level. Copyright © 2001 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.185 · 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