MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002145596 · doi:10.1680/jcien.17.00043

Tsunami design procedures for engineered buildings: a critical review

2018· review· en· W3002145596 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEarthquake and Tsunami Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsDesign elements and principlesCivil engineeringForensic engineeringKey (lock)EngineeringComputer scienceComputer securitySystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tsunamis have the potential to cause enormous loss of life and socio-economic impacts on coastal communities. Central to tsunami risk mitigation is the protection of critical infrastructure and evacuation-designated buildings, which are often necessarily located within tsunami inundation zones. As such, these must be designed to withstand and remain fully or partially operational after a tsunami. Guidance documents for tsunami design of buildings exist in the USA and Japan, including the recent release of the US ASCE 7 chapter 6 on tsunami loads and effects. This paper outlines the key engineering principles of tsunami design of buildings, summarises and compares how these principles are addressed by US and Japanese standards, and outlines considerations not yet covered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.238 · 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