Comparison of the Structural Response of the Most Common Building Systems in Peru and their Impact on the Cost of Multifamily Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was carried out with the purpose of making known the structural characteristics of the most common construction systems in Peru: MDL, Aporticados, Masonry and Dua l to determine which is the system that presents better seismic behavior and its impact on the cost; from the documentary review performed in our thesis "Characterization of the Structural Response of the Systems Walls Of Limited Ductility, Aporticado, Masonry and Dua l and its Incidence on the Cost in Multifamily Buildings, Cajamarca 2021", where, the structural variables were analyzed: maxim um interstory displacement, basal shear, maximum drift, dynamic shea r, shear at the base, fundamental period of the structure, spectral acceleration, and cost by means of data compilation formats, which were subsequently compared by means of percentage of variation of the aforementioned parameters. The results yielded structural and economic comparisons by parameter for each system and heights considered, where low buildings were taken as 1, 2 and 3 stories, medium buildings as 5 stories, and tall buildings as 7, 8, 9 and 10 stories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".