MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123882489 · doi:10.1193/1.4000040

Seismic Performance of Engineered Masonry Buildings in the 2010 Maule Earthquake

2012· article· en· W2123882489 on OpenAlexaff
Maximiliano Astroza, Ofelia Moroni, Svetlana Brzev, J.E. Tanner

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
FundersUniversidad de ChileEarthquake Engineering Research Institute
KeywordsMasonryUnreinforced masonry buildingForensic engineeringVulnerability (computing)Reinforced concreteEngineeringLow-riseGeologyCivil engineeringStructural engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineered masonry, namely reinforced and confined masonry, has been widely used for housing construction in Chile over the last few decades. Most one‐ and two‐story single‐family masonry dwellings did not experience any damage due to the 27 February 2010 Maule earthquake, with the exception of a few dwellings of pre‐1970 vintage, which suffered moderate damage. A similar statement can be made for three‐ and four‐story confined masonry buildings: a large majority of buildings remained undamaged. However, several reinforced and partially confined three‐ and four‐story masonry buildings suffered extensive damage, and two three‐story partially confined buildings collapsed. The key damage patterns and the causes of damage are discussed in the paper. The extent of damage observed in the field was correlated with calculated vulnerability indices, and relevant recommendations were made related to the design and construction practices.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations65
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207