Site, local, and regional earthquake ground motion characterization and application
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic overview and comparison is presented on the seismic hazard assessment based on the observations and seismic hazard model and the characteristics of earthquake ground motions for a site, a local area, and a region. It shows that the seismic hazard estimated by directly using the observations could differ from that evaluated using an adopted seismic hazard model. It indicates the importance to judiciously select the seismic hazard model, as well as to understand that historical records for a limited period may not fully reflect the seismic hazard. The comparison of the ground motion characteristics is focused on the variability of the ground motion measures, the coherency for record components in two orthogonal orientations, and the spatial correlation and spatial coherency. Procedures for simulating bidirectional excitations at a site and record components at multiple sites for a scenario seismic event are given. The application of the simulated record components to estimate the seismic loss for a portfolio of hypothetical buildings by considering a scenario event is shown, indicating the effectiveness of the presented methodology for seismic loss estimation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it