MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159687649 · doi:10.1061/41016(314)116

Dynamic Characteristics of Tall Buildings in Vancouver, Canada

2008· article· en· W2159687649 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Turek, Carlos E. Ventura, Katherine Thibert

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationStructural engineeringTowerModalShear wallFoundation (evidence)Modal analysisGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringFinite element methodMaterials scienceAcousticsArchaeologyPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a series of vibration tests conducted on tall reinforced concrete shear-wall buildings located in Downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The buildings tested were the Sheraton Wall Centre, The City Tower building, The Heritage Court Tower and The Melville. Ambient vibration tests were performed on each building to obtain its dynamic characteristics. Overall vibration levels, mode shapes, modal frequencies and modal damping were determined. In addition, detailed ground measurements were taken on the Melville and the City Tower buildings to examine potential rocking behaviour and soil-structure interaction effects of the raft foundation. Interesting results of the study show that some lateral modes of vibration of the buildings include base rocking, even at low levels of vibration, and that modal coupling between the lower modes of vibration is significant. These findings indicate that the seismic response of these buildings during severe shaking may be different than that predicted during the design process.

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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2008Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207