MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412754785 · doi:10.11159/iccste25.358

Seismic Performance Evaluation of a 10-Story Structural Wall Building under Severe Earthquakes in Lima, 2025.

2025· article· en· W4412754785 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lenin Bendezú R., Nagaraja Bhat Y V, F. M., Malena Serrano

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismologyGeologyComputer scienceForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to contribute to the study of seismic behaviour by evaluating the seismic performance of reinforced concrete wall structures through the development of a representative archetype.This archetype was elaborated based on the analysis and systematisation of ten structural plans of real buildings that share similar characteristics.The methodology followed includes the nonlinear static analysis to determine the data that will help to plot the capacity curve of the structure.This process is carried out with the Stera 3D software that provides the data of the capacity curve, then the demand curves or demand spectra are elaborated according to the indications of the vision 2000 committee.Subsequently, the structural performance point is determined through the intersection between the capacity curve and the demand curves, which makes it possible to identify the level of performance achieved.The results obtained show that the archetype analysed achieves a different performance level for each earthquake that generates a different demand curve.This approach allows a more accurate understanding of the seismic behaviour of similar buildings, providing useful tools for decision making in structural design and seismic strengthening.

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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall BuildingsFrench-language works237,207