Seismic vulnerability of churches: the effect of context-related characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Italy, a systematic treatment of the vulnerability of churches and of the classification of their peculiar damage modes has been the object of extended studies. Starting from the definition of macro-elements that are the main components of a church structure, affected by specific and recurrent damage patterns, a series of the most frequent limit mechanisms has been defined and is currently adopted in practice in assessment procedures. This work investigates the possibility to apply these concepts and procedures to other regions with different church typologies and constructional traditions and to identify procedural modifications that may be necessary. The documentation of church damage, occurred in the region of Québec, and the seismic risk of the city of Montreal have motivated to set up a collaborative research program aimed at defining an approach suitable for assessing the vulnerability of historic churches in such territory. From a previously developed inventory, churches have been grouped according to their typology, pointing out the constructional characteristics of each group and the damage patterns that may or may not be applicable from the Italian mechanisms. A first prevision is made of other possible context-related damage modes. Structural analyses to confirm these assumptions are in progress.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".