MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143543631 · doi:10.1193/1.2160525

A Comparison of Site Response Techniques Using Weak‐Motion Earthquakes and Microtremors

2006· article· en· W2143543631 on OpenAlex
Sheri Molnar, J. F. Cassidy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersBC Hydro
KeywordsMicrotremorBedrockGeologySeismologyAmplitudeGeodesyGeomorphologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The applicability of the microtremor spectral ratio method is examined by comparing microtremor and weak‐motion earthquake site responses at seven permanent strong‐motion sites in Victoria, British Columbia. For each site, a weak‐motion earthquake standard spectral ratio (bedrock reference), the average horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratio of up to five weak‐motion earthquakes, and the average microtremor (Nakamura method) spectral ratio are compared. The geologic setting of Victoria is ideal for site response studies with a near‐surface high impedance contrast between thin geologic layers of Victoria clay (about 11 m maximum in this study) and Pleistocene till or bedrock. Regardless of excitation source (weak‐motion earthquakes or microtremors) and spectral ratio method, similar peak amplitudes and fundamental frequencies were found. Thicker material (>10 m ) sites displayed higher peak amplitudes (up to six times amplification) at frequencies of 2–5 Hz compared to sites with a thin lens of material (<3 m ) over bedrock that showed peak amplitudes at frequencies of >8 Hz .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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