MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098904353 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2012-0055

Seismic screening of buildings based on the 2010 National Building Code of Canada

2013· article· en· W2098904353 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Murat Saatçioğlu, Maryam Shooshtari, S. Foo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding codeInduced seismicitySeismic hazardHazardEngineeringCivil engineeringSoftwareSeismic analysisSeismic riskForensic engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismic screening software is developed for existing buildings in Canada on the basis of the requirements of 2010 National Building Code of Canada. The software is based on the “Manual for Screening of Buildings for Seismic Investigation,” published by the National Research Council of Canada in 1992. The new software incorporates updated seismicity and soil classifications used in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) since 2005, as well as the new ductility and over-strength factors specified in the 2010 NBCC. The uniform hazard spectrum values of the current Canadian seismicity, defined for each municipality in Canada with a 2500 year earthquake return period, are used as reference hazard values. Seismic risk associated with the use of older seismic hazard values specified in older editions of the NBCC is identified relative to the current reference seismicity. The new site classifications are incorporated, while establishing relative soil amplification values between the new acceleration-based and velocity-based soil amplification factors and the foundation factors used in older codes. The new ductility and over-strength factors used in recent editions of the code are introduced in identifying different structural types with different toughness and energy dissipation capacities. The software can be used to conduct seismic screening of buildings located in different municipalities in Canada relative to the seismic requirements of NBCC-2010. It can also be used to generate tables for different locations in the country for manual screening of buildings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.009

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207