MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909044835 · doi:10.4095/212122

Use of high-resolution shear-wave-reflection methods for determining earthquake fundamental site period response near Alfred, Ontario

2001· report· en· W2909044835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Beatriz Benjumea, J A Hunter, R A Burns, R. L. Good, S E Pullan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismologyGeologyPeriod (music)Shear (geology)Reflection (computer programming)Response analysisAcousticsEngineeringPhysicsStructural engineeringPaleontologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fundamental site resonance periods due to earthquake shaking have been calculated in a sediment-filled bedrock basin located near Alfred, Ontario, using a high-resolution shear-wave-reflection method. This area is character- ized by postglacial marine (Champlain Sea) sediments exhibiting surface disturbance that has been postulated to be the result of paleo-earthquake activity ca. 7060 BP. Hence, the study of parameters that govern the basin response to shaking will aid in understanding deformation within this zone. Shear waves can provide straightfor- ward estimates of the fundamental site period from nearly vertical reflection travel times. Data have been collected at 21 locations that show wide variations in values of fundamental site periods. The quality of the reflection data strongly depends on near-surface conditions. A refraction study in one area provided the shear-wave velocities within bedrock and overburden necessary to evaluate the resonance amplification effect.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207