MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414334310 · doi:10.1080/13632469.2025.2555002

How Soil-Structure Interaction and Footing Size Affect Seismic Repair Costs of Low-Rise Concentrically Braced Frames

2025· article· en· W4414334310 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Earthquake Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsBraced frameAffect (linguistics)Steel frameBraceBracingSeismic analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building codes emphasize capacity design for superstructures, but seismic design provisions for foundations vary widely. US codes allow reduced seismic loads for footings, leading to significant movement, while Canadian codes often require capacity-protected footings with minimal movement. This study examines the effects of soil and foundation on short-period concentrically braced frame (CBF) buildings, focusing on footing size, seismic behavior, and economic loss. Results show that soil-structure interaction (SSI) can reduce expected annual loss but may increase collapse probability. Therefore, building codes should account for controlled foundation motion in design to optimize both structural performance and economic resilience.

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.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.197 · 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