MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315927022 · doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107772

Site amplification prediction model of shallow bedrock sites based on machine learning models

2023· article· en· W4315927022 on OpenAlexaff
Yong‐Gook Lee, Sang-Jin Kim, Zeinep Achmet, Oh‐Sung Kwon, Duhee Park, Luigi Di Sarno

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedrockArtificial neural networkGeologySeismic hazardMachine learningEmpirical modellingArtificial intelligenceSeismologyAlgorithmComputer scienceSimulationGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prediction of the site amplification is of primary importance for a site-specific seismic hazard assessment. A large suite of both empirical and simulation-based site amplification models has been proposed. Because they are conditioned on a few simplified site proxies including time-averaged shear wave velocity up to a depth of 30 m ( V S30 ) and site period ( T G ), they only provide approximate estimates of the site amplification. In this study, site amplification prediction models are developed using two machine learning algorithms , which are random forest (RF) and deep neural network (DNN). A comprehensive database of site response analysis outputs obtained from simulations performed on shallow bedrock profiles is used. Instead of simplified site proxies and ground motion intensity measures, matrix data which include the response spectrum of the input ground motion and shear wave velocity profile . Both machine learning based models provide exceptional prediction accuracies of both the linear and nonlinear amplifications compared with the regression-based model, producing accurate predictions of both binned mean and standard deviation of the site amplification. Among two machine learning techniques , DNN-based model is revealed to produce better predictions.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Dynamics and Earthquake EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207