Assembly Algorithms for Seismic Vulnerability Estimation in Confined Masonry Dwellings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Peru, confined masonry houses are self-built, which makes it crucial to determine their seismic vulnerability.The objective of the research was to estimate the seismic vulnerability of confined masonry dwellings in the Pueblo Libre-Jaé n sector using assembly algorithms.A database was constructed with data obtained from the National Institute of Civil Defense (INDECI), scientific articles, and theses.Subsequently, the data set was divided into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%), employing the stacking method with five combinations CB_1, CB_2, CB_3, CB_4, and CB_5.The basic algorithms Gradient-Boosting, Random-Forest, Extra-Tree, and Decision-Tree were utilized as the base algorithms, with the final estimator being the Random Forest Meta-Learner.The models were trained and validated in Python, achieving accuracies of 94.95, 95.48, 95.39, and 95.66 for the base models and 95.62, 95.23, 95.76, 95.90, and 94.80% for the ensemble models.The most accurate models were the simple Gradient Boosting (95.66%) and the assembled models CB_3 (95.76%) and CB_4 (95.90%).The CB_4 model, which is composed of the Decision Tree and Gradient Boosting algorithms, was applied to the Pueblo Libre sector and yielded a reliability estimate of greater than 95% for the seismic vulnerability of confined masonry.This estimate was classified as high (1.48%),moderate (32.85%), and low (65.67%).It is anticipated that the model implemented will enable engineers and authorities to implement mitigation measures to reinforce housing in the event of a seismic event.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".