MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024417334

Robust Earthquake Site Classification Assessment at Ontario Bridge Sites.

2018· article· en· W7024417334 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoreholeCone penetration testPenetration testGround motionBridge (graph theory)Microtremor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian seismic design guidelines classify subsurface ground conditions based on the average shear-wave velocity (VS) of the upper 30 meters (VS30). We seek to optimize a robust earthquake site classification procedure for Ontario bridge sites, assessed primarily from blind comparison of non-invasive VS depth profiling techniques. Non-invasive seismic testing is performed at 10 bridge sites in southern Ontario co-located with invasive penetration and/or borehole VS measurements. Non-invasive surface wave dispersion and site amplification functions are jointly inverted to retrieve VS profiles at each site. A general correlation between corrected VS and cone tip resistance (qc1) is developed for all soils encountered in Windsor, Ontario. We determine an overall average relative difference in VS between methodologies of 17% for soil layers at all bridge sites. Earthquake site classification based on VS is consistent at all sites regardless of methodology. Non-invasive techniques offer an efficient but lower-resolution VS profiling alternative to invasive earthquake site classification techniques with the advantages of measuring site period and VS of the impenetrable substratum.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207