Comparative Study of the Inelastic Seismic Demand of Eastern and Western Canadian Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The damage potential of earthquake ground motions compatible with site‐specific 2% in 50 year uniform hazard spectra is compared at two North American sites in areas of moderate seismic hazard: Montreal, in the east, and Vancouver, along the west coast. For Vancouver, crustal, subcrustal and Cascadia subduction ground motion earthquake ensembles are considered. Nonlinear dynamic analyses of bi‐linear single‐degree‐of‐freedom oscillators exhibiting various ductility levels and damage laws were performed to determine R factors required to prevent structural collapse for each site and each system. Then, inelastic response parameters were computed for the general design case, wherein a prescribed R factor is used for a given system irrespective of tectonic region or structural period. The results show that the R factors vary with the ductility level, the damage law, the structural period, and the tectonic region. Neglecting the latter two dependencies in design, as is current practice, may lead to significant discrepancies in the level of protection achieved for different structures in different regions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".