MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340839372 · doi:10.1002/eqe.2739

Spectral shape metrics and structural collapse potential

2016· article· en· W2340839372 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Eads, Eduardo Miranda, Dimitrios G. Lignos

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpectral shape analysisIntensity (physics)Ground motionMetric (unit)Motion (physics)Range (aeronautics)AccelerationSpectral slopeSpectral linePhysicsGeometryGeologyMathematicsOpticsMaterials scienceEngineeringClassical mechanicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper examines various parameters that provide a measure of spectral shape and studies how they relate to the potential of ground motion records to cause the collapse of a given structure. It is shown that when measuring the ground motion intensity by the spectral acceleration at the first‐mode period of the structure, Sa(T1), records causing collapse at low ground motion intensities typically have significantly different spectral shapes than those that do not cause collapse until much higher ground motion intensities. A spectral shape typical of damaging records is identified, and a metric for quantifying the spectral shape of a record called SaRatio is proposed and evaluated. SaRatio is defined as the ratio between Sa(T1) and the average spectral value over a period range. The ability of SaRatio to predict the collapse intensity, i.e. the minimum intensity at which a given ground motion causes the collapse of a given structure, is compared to other recently proposed spectral shape metrics including epsilon (ε), eta (η) and Np. The results demonstrate that SaRatio is typically a much better predictor of collapse intensity than other spectral shape metrics. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations78
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207