MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103479261 · doi:10.1193/070113eqs186m

Comparison of NGA‐West2 GMPEs

2014· article· en· W2103479261 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Gregor, Norman Abrahamson, Gail M. Atkinson, David M. Boore, Yousef Bozorgnia, Kenneth W. Campbell, Brian Chiou, I. M. Idriss, Ronnie Kamai, Emel Seyhan, Walter Silva, Jonathan P. Stewart, Robert Youngs

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCalifornia Earthquake AuthorityCalifornia Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsMagnitude (astronomy)Ground motionStandard deviationGeologyEarthquake magnitudeMathematicsAttenuationStatisticsGeodesySeismologyPhysicsGeometryAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A presentation of the model parameters and comparison of the median ground‐motion values from the NGA‐West2 GMPEs is presented for a suite of deterministic cases. In general, the median ground motions are similar, within a factor of about 1.5–2.0 for 5 < M < 7 and distances between 10–100 km. Differences increase (on the order of 2–3) for large‐magnitude ( M > 8) earthquakes at large distances ( R > 100–200 km) and for close distances ( R < 10 km). A similar increase is observed for hanging‐wall sites, and slightly larger differences are observed for soil sites as opposed to rock sites. Regionalization of four of the GMPEs yields similar attenuation rate adjustments based on the different regional data sets. All five GMPE aleatory variability models are a function of magnitude with higher overall standard deviations values for the smaller magnitudes when compared to the large‐magnitude events.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations174
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207