MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097986666

Motazedian D. Probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis for four Canadian cities. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2011;101:190–201

2016· article· en· W7097986666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionSeismic hazardHazardMoment magnitude scaleProbabilistic logicProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsMagnitude (astronomy)Hazard analysisEarthquake scenario
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Changes to building codes in the last decade, lowering the probability at which design ground motions for geotechnical applications are defined, have led to an urgent need for a probabilistic approach/tool for liquefaction potential assessment. We propose a consistent approach for probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis (PLHA) that is based on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and incorporates a reliability-based liquefaction potential evaluation method based on shear-wave velocity data. The method directly takes the joint probability distribution of peak ground accelera-tion and moment magnitude into account. We demonstrate the method for four Canadian cities, employing our interim updated seismic hazard models for eastern and western Canada. Using the developed method and representative site profiles, PLHA is implemented for four major cities across Canada with the aim of investigating the impact of regional seismic characteristics on liquefaction hazard assessment. Sensitivity analysis indicates that different magnitude ranges of dominant contributing seismic events have significant impact on the extent of liquefaction hazard. More specifically, for a given seismic excitation level, the relatively high hazard contribu-tions from small-to-moderate earthquakes in eastern Canada leads to less significant liquefaction potential, in comparison with similar sites in western Canada.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.174 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics→French-language works237,207→