On the Seismic Fragility Assessment of Concrete Gravity Dams in Eastern Canada
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
In recent years, probabilistic methods, such as fragility analysis, have emerged as reliable tools for the seismic assessment of dam‐type structures. These methods require the selection of a representative suite of ground motion records, resulting in the need for a ground motion selection method that includes all the relevant ground motion parameters in the fragility analysis of this type of structure. This article presents the development of up‐to‐date fragility curves for the sliding limit states of gravity dams in Eastern Canada using a record selection method based on the generalized conditional intensity measure approach. These fragility functions are then combined with the recently developed regional hazard data to evaluate the annual risk, which is measured in terms of the unconditional probability of limit state exceedance. The proposed methodology is applied to a case study dam in northeastern Canada, whose fragility is assessed through comparison with previous studies and current safety guidelines. It is observed that the more accurate procedure proposed herein produces less conservative fragility estimates for the case study dam.
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) | 0.000 | 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