MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106812667 · doi:10.1139/l04-099

Regional seismic risk in British Columbia — classification of buildings and development of damage probability functions

2005· article· en· W2106812667 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Carlos E. Ventura, W. D. Liam Finn, Tuna Onur, Ardel Blanquera, Mahmoud Rezai

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Probability distributionSeismic riskComputer scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regional seismic risk estimations are needed in southwestern British Columbia, since it is one of the most seismically active and highly populated regions in Canada. Regional estimations typically involve a large number of buildings, which makes it necessary to establish a building classification system, where the average response to earthquake shaking is assumed to be similar within each building class. In this study, buildings in British Columbia were divided into 31 classes based on their material, lateral load bearing system, height, use, and age. A damage probability matrix (DPM) was then developed for each building class which describes the probability of being in a certain damage level (i.e., light, moderate, heavy, etc.) given the ground shaking intensity. Next, a probability distribution function was fit to the discrete probability values at each intensity level. The products of this study, the building classification system, the DPMs, and the probability distribution functions will allow regional damage and loss estimations in the area.Key words: seismic risk, vulnerability, building classification, structural system, building response, damage, probability.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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