MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982047438 · doi:10.1785/0120190230

A Ground-Motion Prediction Equation for Fennoscandian Nuclear Installations

2020· article· en· W2982047438 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ludovic Fülöp, Vilho Jussila, Riina Aapasuo, Tommi Vuorinen, Päivi Mäntyniemi

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHelsingin YliopistoU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
KeywordsMoment magnitude scaleSpectral accelerationRange (aeronautics)GeologyGeodesySeismologySeismic hazardStandard deviationGround motionAttenuationPeak ground accelerationMagnitude (astronomy)MathematicsStatisticsPhysicsGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We propose a ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE) for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of nuclear installations in Finland. We collected and archived the acceleration recordings of 77 earthquakes from seismic stations on very hard rock (VHR, i.e., the shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m of the geological profile=2800 m/s according to the definition used in the nuclear industry) in Finland and Sweden since 2006 and computed the corresponding response spectra important for engineering evaluation. We augmented the narrow magnitude range of the local data by a subset of VHR recordings of 33 earthquakes from the Next Generation Attenuation for Central and Eastern North America (CENA) (NGA-East) database, mainly from eastern Canada. We adapted the backbone curves of the G16 equation proposed by Graizer (2016) for CENA. After the calibration, we evaluated the accuracy of the median prediction and the random error. We conclude that the GMPE developed can be used for predicting ground motions in Fennoscandia. Because of compatibility with the original G16 backbone curve and comparisons with the NGA-East GMPEs, we estimate that the formulation proposed is valid on VHR over the range of 2≤moment magnitude≤7.0 and 0≤ rupture distance ≤300 km, the depth range over 1.5–37 km, and frequencies between 1 and 100 Hz. The median of the composite prediction of the GMPE proposed was reasonable. The standard deviation of the prediction error (σ) was over the range of 0.73–0.86, in ln spectral acceleration units, for the relevant spectral frequencies. This is somewhat lower than the G16 σ, indicating lower aleatory variability. The new Fenno-G16 GMPE is applicable over a wider range of magnitudes than the two older GMPEs available in Finland and fits the data better, especially for peak ground acceleration and 25 Hz.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207