MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7045841568

Calculating modal target epsilons from multiple GMPE models: A case study for Montréal

2012· article· en· W7045841568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodHyporeflexiaTSG101Articular cartilage damageDysgeusiaDiafiltration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA), the target epsilon "εo" represents the departure of the target ground motion, at a specific hazard level, from that predicted by the ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE). Target epsilon values are commonly used in seismic performance evaluations for identifying design events and selecting ground motion records for vulnerability and liquefaction studies. There are few methods for calculating the modal (most likely) target epsilons and values are usually reported at different locations by considering a single GMPE in the seismological model. A single GMPE model provides an independent set of epsilons. For cases where multiple GMPEs are being considered, a method is required to calculate robust weighted modal epsilon values that account for epistemic uncertainty. A method is proposed for calculating target epsilons when multiple GMPE models are being considered. The proposed method, along with other procedures, is demonstrated for the case of Montreal Island.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueePrints Soton (University of Southampton)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207