MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188875596 · doi:10.1155/2021/9933078

Comparative Application of Time‐Frequency Methods on Strong Motion Signals

2021· article· en· W3188875596 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammad Ashtari Jafari

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformHarmonic wavelet transformFourier transformShort-time Fourier transformTime–frequency analysisWaveletConstant Q transformWavelet transformFractional Fourier transformComputer scienceMathematicsContinuous wavelet transformAlgorithmDiscrete wavelet transformFilter (signal processing)Fourier analysisMathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real‐world physical signals are commonly nonstationary, and their frequency details change with time and do not remain constant. Fourier transform that uses infinite sine/cosine waves as basis functions represents frequency constituents of signals but does not show the variations of the signal frequency contents over time. Multiresolution demonstration of the time‐frequency domain may be achieved by the techniques that can support adjustable resolution in time and frequency. Earthquake strong motion signals are nonstationary and indicate time‐varying frequency content due to the scattering from the source to the site. In this paper, we applied short‐time Fourier transform, S‐transform, continuous wavelet transform, fast discrete wavelet transform, synchrosqueezing transform, synchroextracting transform, continuous wavelet synchrosqueezing, filter bank synchrosqueezing, empirical mode decomposition, and Fourier decomposition methods on the near‐source strong motion signals from the 7 May 2020 Mosha‐Iran earthquake to study and compare the frequency content of this event estimated by these methods. According to the results that are examined by Renyi entropy and relative error, synchroextracting performed better in terms of energy concentration, and the Fourier decomposition method revealed the lowest difference between the original and reconstructed records.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Civil EngineeringSame topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207