Comparison of prediction and measurement techniques for pedestrian-induced vibrations of a low-frequency floor
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
Pedestrian footfalls are often the governing source of vibration on the upper floors of structures. These vibrations may cause discomfort for occupants or interfere with the operation of sensitive equipment. Numerous design guidelines are available to assist structural engineers in achieving vibration serviceability objectives. The current methodology is largely deterministic and does not accurately represent the stochastic nature of pedestrian-induced vibrations or the probability that walkers will generate the predicted response. Statistical analysis is applied to compare long-term vibration measurements in a commercial structure against predictions from relevant guidelines and short-term controlled walking tests. The comparison is used to evaluate the probability that vibration levels predicted by the guidelines and induced through controlled walking tests will be exceeded by typical day-to-day vibrations. The results are important for the development of future fully encompassing probabilistic models of pedestrian-induced vibrations and for aiding architects and engineers in deciding the necessity of potentially costly mitigation measures.
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