MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331235769 · doi:10.1061/9780784412367.200

Ambient Vibration Measurements of Dynamic Properties of School Buildings in Montreal, Quebec

2012· article· en· W2331235769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helene Tischer, Denis Mitchell, G. McClure

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2012 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbient vibrationBuilding codeMasonryInfillStructural engineeringShear wallVibrationEnvironmental scienceEngineeringAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a research project conducted at McGill University, in-situ dynamic properties of 80 low-rise school buildings located in Montreal, Quebec, were identified from ambient vibration measurements. Natural periods determined for the two most common lateral load resisting systems (concrete shear wall buildings and concrete frame buildings with unreinforced masonry infill walls) are presented. They are compared to approximate equations that estimate the fundamental period as a function of building height, given in the 2010 National Building Code of Canada. It is shown that the fit between the experimental periods and approximate code formulae is poor, with code expressions grossly overestimating the periods. Linear regression on the experimental data resulted in the development of better fitting expressions. The periods obtained from ambient vibration measurements were also compared to generic capacity curves used in the Hazus-MH MR4 multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. The measured periods seem to be slightly low, but they are generally in agreement with the theoretical capacity curves.

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)0.000
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 score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2012Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207