Assessment of Coherency for Bidirectional Horizontal Ground Motions and Its Application for Simulating Records at Multiple Stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of the coherency of ground‐motion records in two horizontal orthogonal directions at single or multiple stations is carried out using records from SMART‐1 array for several seismic events in Taiwan. Empirical coherency function is suggested for the components of records in two horizontal orthogonal directions at single‐ and multiple‐recording stations. It was also found that the coherency for the records along the major and minor principal axes at a recording station is similar to that for two randomly oriented orthogonal directions. The spatial coherency and the spatial correlation of the records are used to establish a procedure for simulating bidirectional horizontal ground motions at multiple stations, considering that the stochastic point‐source method or the stochastic finite‐fault method can be used to define the reference Fourier amplitude spectra for scenario events. Use of the proposed procedure to simulate records is illustrated for a scenario seismic event; the adequacy of the simulated records in approximating the target spatial correlation and coherency is presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".