MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6966829753 · doi:10.4224/40002989

Level 1: Preliminary Seismic Risk Screening Tool (PST) for existing wood light frame buildings under part 9 of the NBC. Part 1: user’s guide

2022· report· en· W6966829753 on OpenAlexafffundvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2022
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersSponsored Research and Industrial ConsultancyNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsFrame (networking)Seismic riskBenchmark (surveying)Risk assessmentSeismic analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Level 1 – Preliminary Seismic Risk Screening Tool (PST) for existing wood light frame buildings under Part 9 of the NBC (WLF-P9) aims to quickly identify and exempt existing WLF-P9 buildings with acceptable seismic risks from further seismic risk assessment. The methodology in Level 1 – PST (WLF-P9) is based on Level 1 – PST originally developed for existing Part 4 buildings. Level 1 – PST (WLF-P9) is designed to be completed by trained screeners using Level 1 – PST (WLF-P9) screening forms. A site visit is not required as the building information for completing the form can be collected in office. Major changes made to the original Level 1 – PST for existing Part 4 buildings are summarized as follows: 1. The benchmark NBC edition for existing WLF-P9 buildings have been identified by tracking the evolution of design provisions in Part 9 of the NBC. 2. Consequences of failure have been determined for existing WLF-P9 buildings. 3. The seismic risk acceptance criteria have been updated to suit the characteristics and seismic behaviour of existing WLF-P9 buildings. 4. The Level 1 – PST screening form has been modified to reflect the changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2620.179

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→