MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974304203 · doi:10.1177/8755293019878185

Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America

2019· article· en· W2974304203 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsErgodic theoryTerm (time)ScalingGeographyGeologyTectonicsSeismologySeismic hazardGeodesyMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States Geological Survey national seismic hazard maps have historically been produced for a reference site condition of V S 30 = 760 m/s. For other site conditions, site factors are used, which heretofore have been developed using ground motion data and simulations for shallow earthquakes in active tectonic regions. Research results from the Next Generation Attenuation–East (NGA‐East) project, as well as previous and contemporaneous related research, demonstrate different levels of site amplification in central and eastern North America (CENA) as compared to active regions. We provide recommendations for modeling of ergodic site amplification in CENA based primarily on research results from the literature. The recommended model has three additive terms in natural logarithmic units. Two describe linear site amplification: an empirically constrained V S 30 ‐scaling term relative to a 760 m/s reference and a simulation‐based term to adjust site amplification from the 760 m/s reference to the CENA reference of V S = 3000 m/s. The third term is a nonlinear model that is described in a companion document. All median model components are accompanied by epistemic uncertainty models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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