Seismic screening of buildings based on the 2010 National Building Code of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".