MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810420587 · doi:10.3126/jie.v13i1.20345

Geotechnical and Structural Aspect of 2015 Gorkha Nepal Earthquake and Lesson Learnt

2018· article· en· W2810420587 on OpenAlexaff
Keshab Sharma, Mandip Subedi, Indra Prasad Acharya, Bigul Pokharel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Institute of Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAftershockMoment magnitude scaleMasonryLiquefactionGeologySettlement (finance)Geotechnical engineeringAdobeSeismologyMagnitude (astronomy)LandslideDamagesForensic engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An earthquake of moment magnitude (Mw ) 7.8 struck the central Nepal at 11:56 am on April 25, 2015. More than 9,000 people were killed and thousands of residential buildings, and hundreds other structures were also destroyed. An aftershock of moment magnitude (Mw ) 7.3 hit northeast of Kathmandu on May 12 after 17 days of main shock which caused additional damages. Immediately after the earthquake, authors undertook a field investigation and visited the affected areas. Strong motion records from both earthquakes and their impacts on structures as well as geotechnical issues are presented in this paper. Most of the structures in Nepal are made of adobe, unreinforced masonry, and reinforced concrete. Failure mechanisms of those buildings are briefly explained in this paper. Geotechnical aspects such as soil liquefaction, slope failures, settlement and lateral spreading, and site amplification effects that considerably influenced the damage patterns at many areas are briefly discussed as well. The lessons learnt from this earthquake are also summarized in this paper.Journal of the Institute of Engineering, 2017, 13(1): 20-36

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Institute of EngineeringSame topicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall BuildingsFrench-language works237,207