MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314577967 · doi:10.1061/9780784412640.088

Damage to Residential Construction from the Tornadoes in Vaughan, Ontario, on August 20, 2009

2012· article· en· W2314577967 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Murray J. Morrison, Gregory A. Kopp, Eri Gavanski, Craig A. Miller, Arnold Ashton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsTornadoFujita scaleRoofLow-riseMagnitude (astronomy)MeteorologyForensic engineeringGeologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of a detailed damage investigation of the two tornadoes in Vaughan, Ontario, which were part of the 19 tornadoes in the outbreak of August 20, 2009, are presented. The bulk of the damage in both tornadoes consisted of structural roof failures categorized as F1 on the Fujita Scale and EF1 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. However, multiple houses in both tornadoes suffered total roof failure, which is F2 (or EF2). It was observed that the total roof failures were all due to either internal pressurization and or weak (or non-existent) roof-to-wall connections. Since internal pressures are likely to be larger than external pressures for these single family residences, it is argued that the total roof failure occurred under wind speed conditions associated with a lower degree of damage, such that actual wind speeds are like those in EF1 in these particular tornadoes.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
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)0.0110.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207