MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111577997 · doi:10.1785/0120200123

A Time–Frequency Representation Model for Seismic Ground Motions

2020· article· en· W3111577997 on OpenAlexaff
X.Z. Cui, Han Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Spectral densityOrthonormal basisAmplitudeSpectral representationProbabilistic logicGeologyComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A probabilistic model of the time–frequency power spectral density (TFPSD) is presented. The model is developed, based on the time–frequency representation of records from strike-slip earthquakes, in which the time–frequency representation is obtained by applying the S-transform (ST). The model for the TFPSD implicitly considers the amplitude modulation and frequency modulation for the nonstationary ground motions; this differs from the commonly used evolutionary PSD model. Predicting models for the model parameters, based on seismic source and site characteristics, are developed. The use of the model to simulate ground motions for scenario seismic events is illustrated, in which the simulation is carried out using a recently developed model that is based on the discrete orthonormal ST and ST. The illustrative example highlights the simplicity of using the proposed model and the physical meaning of some of the model parameters. A model validation analysis is carried out by comparing the statistics of the pseudospectral acceleration obtained from the simulated records to those obtained using a few ground-motion models available in the literature and considered actual records. The comparison indicates the adequacy of the proposed model.

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 score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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