MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Closed-Form Fragility Estimates, Parameter Sensitivity, and Bayesian Updating for RC Columns

2007· article· en· W2061750636 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Doeun Choe, Paolo Gardoni, David V. Rosowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsFragilitySensitivity (control systems)Probabilistic logicColumn (typography)Bayesian probabilityReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceConditional probabilityMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforced concrete (RC) columns are the most critical components in bridges under seismic excitation. In this paper, a simple closed-form formulation to estimate the fragility of RC columns is developed. The formulation is used to estimate the conditional probability of failure of an example column for given shear and deformation demands. The estimated fragilities are as accurate as more sophisticated estimates (i.e., predictive fragilities) and do not require any reliability software. A sensitivity analysis is carried out to identify to which parameter(s) the reliability of the example column is most sensitive. The closed-form formulation uses probabilistic capacity models. A Bayesian procedure is presented to update existing probabilistic models with new data. The model updating process can incorporate different types of information, including laboratory test data, field observations, and subjective engineering judgment, as they become available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering MechanicsSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207