MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160367417 · doi:10.1061/9780784483374.067

Seismic Site Effect Investigation for Future Moonquake-Resistant Structures by Considering Geometrical and Geotechnical Characteristics of Lunar Bases

2021· article· en· W3160367417 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Amini, Hongwei Liu, Pooneh Maghoul

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth and Space 2021 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEarthquake resistanceEngineeringCivil engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The near-surface lunar characterization and seismic site effect analysis plays an important role in the establishment of future human colonization on the Moon. NASA, CSA, and other agencies are following an ambitious program to “go to the Moon to stay, by 2024.” The seismic experiments data collected during the Surveyor, Apollo, and Luna missions provided preliminary information of the lunar inner structure and corresponding mechanical properties. The collected seismic data can be used to generate a dispersion image of the lunar subsurface. In this paper, the mechanical properties of each layer are determined firstly through the proposed surface wave inversion algorithm. The inversion applies the spectral element method and the trust region method, which effectively reduces the difference (Euclidean distance) between the measured and predicted data. Then, a two-dimensional (2D) seismic site effect analysis is performed based on the predicted lunar soil properties using HYBRID FE/BE numerical code. The seismic responses are obtained for various predefined geometrical points at the Moon surface. The results can be used as a preliminary seismic site effect evaluation for future resilient infrastructure subjected to impact or moonquake.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth and Space 2021Same topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207