Investigation of Structural Seismic Vulnerability Using Machine Learning on Rapid Visual Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic vulnerability assessment is one of the most impactful engineering challenges faced by modern societies. Thus, authorities require a reliable tool that has the potential to rank given structures according to their seismic vulnerability. Various countries and organizations over the past decades have developed Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) tools aiming to efficiently estimate vulnerability indices. In general, RVS tools employ a set of structural features and their associated weights to obtain a vulnerability index, which can be used for ranking. In this paper, Machine Learning (ML) models are implemented within this framework. The proposed formulation is used to train binary classifiers in conjunction with ad hoc rules, employing the features of various Codes (e.g., the Federal Emergency Management Agency, New Zealand, and Canada). The efficiency of this modeling effort is evaluated for each Code separately and it is clearly demonstrated that ML-based models are capable of outperforming currently established engineering practices. Furthermore, in the spirit of the aforementioned Codes, a linearization of the fully trained ML model is proposed. ML feature attribution techniques, namely SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) are employed to introduce weights similar to engineering practices. The promising results motivate the potential applicability of this methodology towards the recalibration of the RVS procedures for various types of cases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".