MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314806113 · doi:10.1190/1.3513633

Some Applications of Near Surface Geophysics to Earthquake Geohazards Investigations: Examples from Eastern Ontario, Canada

2010· article· en· W2314806113 on OpenAlexaffabout
James A. Hunter, Heather Crow, A J -M Pugin, Dariush Motazedian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeophysicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature of seismic shaking is dependent on source characteristics, travel path and near-surface site conditions. Many years of observations of earthquake damage have indicated that the presence of thick soil is a major contributing factor to the shaking response of structures. As well, seismic-induced changes in soil parameters can lead to other effects such as loss of resistance to shear (liquefaction) and landsliding. In the last several years, many national building codes have recognized the importance of soil effects, including shear strength, damping, amplification and resonance. Many of these in-situ geotechnical parameters can now be measured or estimated using modern near-surface geophysical techniques. Indeed, current building codes indicate that the preferred measurement technique for seismic zonation is based on shear wave velocity structure of soil and bedrock. Other active and passive, surface or invasive techniques, also contribute valuable ancillary data leading to assessment of soil strength and liquefaction potential in granular materials.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207