MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400059975 · doi:10.1002/eer2.84

Earthquake economic loss assessment of existing concrete shear wall residential buildings in Eastern Canada

2024· article· en· W4400059975 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maryam Montazeri, Ahmad Abo El Ezz

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering and Resilience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic hazardSeismic riskVulnerability assessmentEarthquake scenarioShear wallBuilding codeVulnerability (computing)Resilience (materials science)Seismic analysisUrban seismic riskCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPsychological resilienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Past major earthquakes have demonstrated that a significant proportion of existing residential buildings are vulnerable to seismic hazards, resulting in economic and social losses. The assessment of earthquake‐induced losses is crucial for devising strategies aimed at enhancing seismic resilience through mitigation plans and emergency response measures. This study intends to provide an analytical methodology for evaluating economic losses for existing residential concrete shear wall buildings in Eastern Canada seismic zones based on Canadian‐compatible seismic capacity parameters. A sampled data set related to residential buildings in Montreal was analyzed and statistical distributions were developed that represent the proportion of buildings in different seismic design code levels and number of stories. Vulnerability analyses were performed, which involved estimating buildings' response under seismic hazard inputs according to the 2020 National Building Code of Canada and conducting loss assessment for structural components, nonstructural displacement‐sensitive components, nonstructural acceleration‐sensitive components, and contents. The results of vulnerability analyses in terms of loss ratio curves showed that the seismic performance varies between mid‐rise and high‐rise concrete shear wall buildings with different seismic design code levels, and nonstructural displacement‐sensitive components exerted the most significant influence on overall economic losses among building components. In addition, a comparison was conducted between Canadian‐compatible economic loss ratio curves and those developed based on the standard seismic capacity parameters in the Hazus technical manual and differences in predicted loss ratios were discussed. The developed loss ratio curves can be integrated into regional scale loss assessment tools for rapid estimation of earthquake‐induced economic losses for concrete shear wall buildings as a function of seismic intensity.

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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake Engineering and ResilienceSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207