MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318207177 · doi:10.3390/buildings13020344

Adriseismic Methodology for Expeditious Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

2023· article· en· W4318207177 on OpenAlexaff
Giorgia Predari, L. Stefanini, Marko Marinković, Mislav Stepinac, Svetlana Brzev

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInterreg
KeywordsUnreinforced masonry buildingMasonryIndex (typography)EngineeringCivil engineeringComputer scienceStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper describes a novel Adriseismic method for expeditious assessment of seismic risk associated with unreinforced masonry buildings. The methodology was developed for the Adriseismic project of the Interreg ADRION programme, with the aim to develop and share tools for increasing cooperation and reducing seismic risk for six participating countries within the region surrounding the Adriatic and the Ionian Seas. The method is applicable to unreinforced masonry buildings characterised by three main seismic failure mechanisms, namely masonry disintegration, out-of-plane failure, and in-plane damage/failure. Depending on the input parameters for a specific structure, the assessment yields a qualitative output that consists of the masonry quality index, the index of structural response, the level of seismic risk, and the most probable collapse mechanism. Both input and output of the method are applied in the spreadsheet form. The method has so far been applied in urban areas of participating countries in the project, including Mirandola, Italy; Kaštela, Croatia; Belgrade, Serbia. In parallel, the methodology has been validated by performing a detailed seismic assessment of more than 25 buildings, and the results have been compared with the results of the proposed expeditious method. The results show a good correlation between the two methods, for example, the structural response index obtained from the expeditious method and the capacity/demand ratio obtained from the conventional assessment method.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207