MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155599148 · doi:10.1002/eqe.289

Response of structures supported on SCF isolation systems

2003· article· en· W2155599148 on OpenAlex
Majid Hamidi, M. Hesham El Naggar, A. Vafai

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBase isolationIsolation (microbiology)Ground motionStructural engineeringFoundation (evidence)Base (topology)Seismic isolationEngineeringGeologyComputer scienceMathematicsGeographyMathematical analysisMechanical engineeringBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aseismic base isolation is an effective method used to protect structures and their contents against earthquakes. An isolated structure may be designed to remain elastic throughout major ground motions as a result of the efficiency of the isolation systems. In this paper, the equations of motion of two‐dimensional elastic structures supported on a new base isolation system called the Sliding Concave Foundation (SCF) are presented and a procedure for their solution is suggested. The responses of a number of structures subjected to different earthquake records are evaluated and the results are compared with those of the same structures supported on two other famous isolation systems and also a fixed base condition. The results indicate the effectiveness of the SCF in protecting the supported structures even during very strong and/or long period earthquakes. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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