MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geotechnical and geological effects of the 21 September 1999 Chi‐Chi earthquake, Taiwan

2000· article· en· W4244533861 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Structural Design of Tall Buildings · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the Chi-Chi earthquake ripped through the pitch dark of the very early morning hours of 21 September 1999, a large area was affected by various geotechnical and geological hazards in addition to the strong ground motion in central Taiwan. The epicenter of the earthquake was located in the central mountains of the island and rupture occurred on the Chelungpu fault. This is a North–South trending thrust fault with a dip of about 30 degrees to the east according to a 1999 US Geological Survey report authored by M. G. Bonilla. Taiwanese authorities had not believed this fault to be an active one because of the lack of evidence of fault activity during the Holocene age (during the last 11 000 years). The earthquake hazards, other than strong ground shaking, included surface fault rupture, landsliding and liquefaction. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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