Integrate the Methods of Linear Full Resonance with Quarter-Wavelength into Strong Motion Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The local site condition plays a crucial role in the study of strong ground motion, and much effort has been expended. The most common theoretical methods are linear full resonance (FR), quarter-wavelength (QWL), equivalent linear and nonlinear. We compare the site response from these two methods and the combination of them for the mainshock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. The surface-borehole recordings at a far-field station FKOH01 and a near-fault station KMMH03 are selected as benchmark. Horizontal ground motions at these two borehole stations are simulated. The site effect is evaluated by three methods of FR, QWL and the combination QWL × FR. At FKOH01, PGAs from QWL × FR are larger than those from QWL and FR; at KMMH03, PGAs from QWL are larger than those from QWL × FR, and the latter are close to those from FR. A similar trend is observed in the comparison of response spectra. Compared with the records, QWL × FR can be adopted to evaluate the site response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".