The seismic vulnerability assessment of Québec churches: considerations on territorial specificities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Masonry churches have demonstrated to be vulnerable to earthquakes.The cause of such vulnerability is due to their intrinsic structural characteristics.Many examples of Italian churches could be cited to illustrate this structural vulnerability, based on the long seismic history which characterizes this territory.A series of systematic studies have been performed since the 1976 Friuli earthquake, providing methods for vulnerability assessment, identification of macroelements and the relative kinematic mechanisms, and damage classification.In this context, the present paper focuses on some territorial aspects, such as materials and techniques of construction, common in Québec churches.They should be considered in the evaluation of the structural performance of the church building under seismic actions.The long Italian history of seismicity and damage experience provides a knowledge base useful also in another context, such as the Canadian one.In this paper, some of the most important Italian earthquakes (Friuli, 1976, Emilia-Lombardy, 2012, Central Italy, 2016) are recalled for specific aspects that were observed and that constitute an experience in the field.These aspects are useful for a preventive analysis of some churches on the Island of Montreal, in the Province of Québec, Canada.Starting from a previous seismic vulnerability study, a research is in progress aiming to identify and define regional macro-elements or mechanisms specific to those churches.An adaptation of the Italian methodology for assessing the seismic vulnerability of churches to a different context, with proper materials and techniques of construction, is proposed in this paper.This approach leads to a method for the seismic vulnerability assessment for churches, specifically related to the territory, keeping as reference the already consolidated procedure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".