MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335136805 · doi:10.1061/9780784412374.046

Deaggregation of Collapse Risk

2012· article· en· W2335136805 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Eads, Eduardo Miranda, Helmut Krawinkler, Dimitrios G. Lignos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFragilitySeismic hazardGround motionSeismologyGeologySeismic riskHazardForensic engineeringEngineeringPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avoidance of collapse is one of the most important objectives when designing structures in seismic regions. This study focuses on collapse risk quantification and, in particular, deaggregation of the mean annual frequency of collapse. Similar to the deaggregation used in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, which provides information about the magnitudes, distances, and epsilon values that primarily contribute to the seismic hazard, deaggregation of the mean annual frequency of collapse is a powerful tool that identifies the ground motion intensities that primarily contribute to the collapse risk of a given structure. A detailed description of how to conduct this deaggregation is presented, and the concept is illustrated using a 4-story steel special moment frame building designed according to the 2003 International Building Code. The collapse risk of this structure is evaluated for sites in the western, central, and eastern United States. Despite significant differences in the seismic hazards at each site, it is shown that intensities corresponding to the lower half of the collapse fragility curve dominate the collapse risk at all sites. It is concluded that emphasis should be placed on the lower half of the collapse fragility curve as opposed to focusing on the median collapse intensity as is currently done.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207