Quantifying uncertainties and correlations of engineering demand parameters of building structures for regional seismic loss assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For an accurate regional seismic loss assessment, it is essential to quantify the uncertainties and correlations of the engineering demand parameters (EDP) of the building structures. Previous studies predicted the mean EDP of each structure by a regression function of the selected intensity measure (IM), while its variability is described by the “EDP residual.” The authors recently proposed a new formulation and Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)‐based methods to evaluate the correlation between EDP residuals. This paper proposes an IM‐invariant method for estimating the variances and correlations of the EDP residuals of building structures. Based on the EDP residuals of various buildings estimated using the proposed method, primary structural characteristics affecting EDP residuals are identified. In addition, this study develops EDP estimation regression equations using predictive variables defined based on the identified structural characteristics to facilitate consideration of the EDP residual correlation in regional seismic loss assessment. Numerical examples verify the regression models and demonstrate that the proposed method can improve the accuracy of a regional loss assessment by considering the building types in the inventory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".