MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101786573 · doi:10.1139/l09-044

Earthquake time histories compatible with the 2005<i>National building code of Canada</i>uniform hazard spectrum

2009· article· en· W2101786573 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Gail M. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHazardSeismologyRange (aeronautics)Building codeSeismic hazardEngineeringSeismic analysisForensic engineeringStatistical analysisStructural engineeringGeologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seismic design provisions of the 2005 National building code of Canada (NBCC) (NRC 2005) describe earthquake ground motions for which structures are to be designed in terms of a uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) having a 2% chance of being exceeded in 50 years. The “target” UHS depends on location and site condition, where site condition is described by a classification scheme based on the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of the deposit. For some applications, such as dynamic analysis by time history methods, it is useful to have time histories that represent the types of earthquake motions expected and match the target UHS from the NBCC over some prescribed period range. In this study, the stochastic finite-fault method is used to generate earthquake time histories that may be used to match the 2005 NBCC UHS for a range of Canadian sites. Records are provided for site classes A, C, D, and E. They are freely available at www.seismotoolbox.ca .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations150
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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