MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114311934 · doi:10.1193/1.4000124

Damage to Steel Buildings Observed after the 2011 Tohoku‐Oki Earthquake

2013· article· en· W2114311934 on OpenAlexaff
Taichiro Okazaki, Dimitrios G. Lignos, Mitsumasa Midorikawa, James M. Ricles, Jay Love

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEarthquake and Tsunami Effects
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEarthquake Engineering Research InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBracingCladding (metalworking)Forensic engineeringLiquefactionJoint (building)EngineeringGeotechnical engineeringLow-riseGeologyStructural engineeringBraceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A joint U.S.–Japan reconnaissance team examined the damage to steel building structures caused by the 2011 Tohoku‐oki earthquake. In the city of Sendai, where the peak horizontal ground acceleration exceeded 1 g, the majority of steel buildings performed well. Buildings that used older cladding systems for external finish sustained damage to their claddings even if their structural performance was excellent. Damage to a few braced frames offer insight into the seismic design of bracing connections. In areas attacked by the violent tsunami, many steel buildings stood upright after the tsunami subsided, although these buildings lost much of their external and internal finishes along with their contents. These steel buildings did not provide safe shelter for tsunami evacuation when the building submerged under the tsunami wave. A number of buildings suffered foundation failure, which was likely caused by scouring or liquefaction or a combination of multiple effects.

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)0.000
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations74
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicEarthquake and Tsunami EffectsFrench-language works237,207