Investigation of an Existing RC Building with Different Rapid Assessment Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of studies, researches and prevention about earthquake have risen after destructive earthquakes in the world especially in recent years . In order to reduce the damages of the earthquakes firstly the performance of buildings needs to be determined. Evaluation of all building under earthquake is impossible due to number of building stocks, time and personnel. Therefore, rapid assessment methods were developed for determine seismic safety of existing buildings.Rapid assessment methods can be used instead of detailed structural analysis because of the buildings stocks amount. These rapid assessment methods can be used for deciding which buildings need further structural analysis and decide to seismic safety level of the buildings. In this study, three of these rapid assessment methods were used for a building that was damaged after 2003 Bingöl earthquake. Japon Seismic Index Method, Canadian Seissmic Screening Method and Turkish First Stage Evaulation Method were used.The study also gives usability of these rapid assessment method. The performance score of the building was calculated sperately with the use of the mentioned three methods and then compared. Building priority ranking obtained by means of the methods were found out to be identical with each other. The priority of the existing building stocks rapid evaluation methods can be used conveniently.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".