Estimation of Seismic Loss for Spatially Distributed Buildings
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
A simulation‐based framework for assessing seismic risk of spatially distributed buildings is developed by taking the spatial correlation of seismic excitations into account. For each of seismic events compiled in a synthetic earthquake catalog, inelastic seismic demand on buildings that are approximated by bilinear single‐degree‐of‐freedom systems is compared with uncertain structural capacity to evaluate seismic damage severity. The proposed framework is employed to investigate the sensitivity of the estimated seismic risk of sets of buildings to the degree of spatially correlated and simultaneously occurring seismic excitations. In particular, four correlation levels—no correlation, full correlation, and partial correlation with/without intra‐event components—are considered. The assignment of the partial correlation is based on a recently developed spatial correlation model, and the sets of hypothetical buildings mimic existing building stocks in downtown Vancouver. The analysis results highlight that underestimation or overestimation of correlation of seismic demand could lead to very different probabilistic characteristics of aggregate seismic loss although its mean is unaltered. The sensitivity analysis results suggest that uncertainty in structural capacities as well as average local soil conditions is of relative importance.
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 | 0.000 | 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