An alternative approach to site factors for NBCC 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The site amplification factors in the 2015 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2015) for South Western British Columbia (SWBC) were developed using only the single site term associated with the ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) for crustal sources. The seismic hazard in SWBC is derived from three source types; crustal, subduction intraplate, and subduction interface sources. Therefore site factors based only on a crustal site term are approximate. This study was conducted to assess the degree of approximation. Alternative site amplification factors for Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia were calculated using site specific look-up tables incorporating all the GMPEs associated with each seismic source type and their associated site terms. The alternative site factors are significantly greater than those given in NBCC 2015 for periods 0.3 s, 0.5 s, and 1.0 s. These results suggest that the process for calculating site amplification factors should be reassessed by the committee currently reviewing seismic hazard for NBCC 2020.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".