Resilience-based design of urban centres: application to blast risk assessment
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
Current standards for the blast protection of buildings are primarily focused on the response of single components and do not provide adequate tools to quantify the overall performance of complex structural systems. Methodologies that can translate structural damage into information actionable by policy-makers are greatly needed to support the risk management process. The best efforts produced to date towards a comprehensive analysis of the built environment under blast threats can be classified under the umbrella of probabilistic risk assessment, which can provide the public with projections of casualties and economic loss. However, additional metrics are needed in order to capture the post-blast resilience of target facilities. The current study addresses the need of a unified risk and resilience framework, wherein new design criteria – the functionality loss index and the resilience indicator – are proposed as instrumental to the assessment of a building’s post-blast functionality and resilience in an integrated fashion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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