MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095267993 · doi:10.1002/eqe.3361

Impacts of simulated M9 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes considering amplifications due to the Georgia sedimentary basin on reinforced concrete shear wall buildings

2020· article· en· W3095267993 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubductionStructural basinSeismic hazardGeologySeismologySpectral accelerationBasin and range topographySedimentary basinStrong ground motionMagnitude (astronomy)Earthquake engineeringPeak ground accelerationGround motionTectonicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Southwest British Columbia has the potential to experience large‐magnitude earthquakes generated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Buildings in Metro Vancouver are particularly vulnerable to these earthquakes because the region lies above the Georgia sedimentary basin, which can amplify the intensity of ground motions, particularly at medium‐to‐long periods. Earthquake design provisions in Canada neglect basin amplification and the consequences of accounting for these effects are uncertain. By leveraging a suite of physics‐based simulations of M9 CSZ earthquakes, we develop site‐specific and period‐dependent spectral acceleration basin amplification factors throughout Metro Vancouver. The M9 simulations, which explicitly account for basin amplification for periods greater than 1s, are benchmarked against the 2016 BC Hydro ground motion model (GMM), which neglects such effects. Outside the basin, empirical and simulated seismic hazard estimates are consistent. However, for sites within the basin and periods in the 1‐5 s range, GMMs significantly underestimate the hazard. The proposed basin amplification factors vary as a function of basin depth, reaching a geometric mean value as high as 4.5 at a 2‐s period, with respect to a reference site located just outside the basin. We evaluate the impact of the M9 simulations on tall reinforced concrete shear wall buildings, which are predominant in the region, by developing a suite of idealized structural systems that capture the strength and ductility intended by historical seismic design provisions in Canada. Ductility demands and collapse risk conditioned on the occurrence of the M9 simulations were found to exceed those associated with ground motion shaking intensities corresponding to the 975 and 2475‐year return periods, far exceeding the ∼500‐year return period of M9 CSZ earthquakes.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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