Comparison of free‐field and foundation input motions from experimentally tested built environments
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
Abstract Eurocode allows recorded acceleration time histories for representations of seismic action for design of structures. However, it does not define whether the ground motion time histories should be obtained from instruments mounted on foundations, below foundations or placed in free field. Recent laboratory experiments showed that foundation input motion may be of higher intensity and with different frequency content when compared to the motion recorded in free‐field during same earthquake event. However, results obtained during a real earthquake events showed that input motions at the foundation of a structure are of similar intensity when compared to motions recorded in free‐field, not far from the structure. In order to investigate the discrepancy this paper provides comparisons of signals recorded at the same time in free‐field and on foundations of structures during the same earthquake event. The signals used were obtained from four different built environments experimentally tested in centrifuges and on shaking tables in Japan, Europe and Canada.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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