MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255897092 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2012-0553

Impact and damage to structures during the 27 February 2010 Chile tsunami

2013· article· en· W2255897092 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dan Palermo, Ioan Nistor, Murat Saatçioğlu, A. Ghobarah

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryInfillMasonry veneerGeologyGeotechnical engineeringLoad bearingStructural engineeringPunchingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage to structures and infrastructure due to the Chile tsunami of 27 February 2010, is presented. Robust, modern engineered structures performed well during this tsunami and, generally, damage only to non-structural components was evident. The majority of damage was sustained by non-engineered residential homes located within the inundation zone. These dwellings consisted of either light timber frame construction or concrete frame construction with brick masonry infill walls. Many of the dwellings incorporated sheet metal as exterior cladding or roofing. The hydrodynamic (drag) forces, impulsive loading, hydrostatic forces, buoyant forces, and debris impact loading were probable sources during the tsunami causing the observed damage. Failures included punching of brick masonry infill walls, partial and complete collapse of load bearing elements such as columns, and sliding and unseating failures of second storey levels and roofs. A discussion of the state of the art in tsunami design practice is also provided.

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)0.001
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207