MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212903853 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0357

Regional liquefaction-induced ground displacement predictions for Canada using 5th Generation NBCC Seismic Hazard Model

2022· article· en· W4212903853 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Prajakta R. Jadhav, Dharma Wijewickreme

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic hazardGeologyLiquefactionGround motionGeotechnical engineeringHazardSeismologyProbabilistic logicBuilding codeMagnitude (astronomy)Hazard analysisStructural engineeringEngineeringStatisticsReliability engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant regions of Canada are seismically active, and areas underlain by loose, saturated sediments in these regions are expected to experience liquefaction-induced lateral spread permanent ground displacements (PGDs) under earthquake shaking. The empirical predictive equations are commonly used for estimating the PGDs especially when detailed numerical analyses are not undertaken. The key input parameters for these equations comprise earthquake magnitude (M) and source distance (R), along with geotechnical and topographic parameters; however, there is ambiguity over choosing appropriate site-specific values of M and R. The current study predicts PGD probabilistic hazard curves that are applicable for locations in southwestern and southeastern regions of Canada using a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) framework. This was achieved by embedding two relevant empirical models for predicting lateral spread PGDs (replacing the ground motion prediction equations) within the 2015 National Building Code of Canada framework that is currently available in OpenQuake platform. Moreover, deaggregation analyses have been performed to understand the M and R contributions from different seismic sources on the predicted site-specific hazard. The developed PGD curves can be readily adopted for estimating site-specific lateral spread PGD demand as input to performance-based design of structures in seismically active areas of Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207