MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099008886

Local site effects in Ottawa, Canada – First results from a strong motion network. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

2004· article· en· W7099008886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera: Cerambycidae studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrapolationObservatoryGround motionRange (aeronautics)Magnitude (astronomy)Motion (physics)Event (particle physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A five station strong motion network of ETNA instruments was established in Ottawa in the winter of 2002. The network was designed to sample typical site conditions across the urban area, and forms one prototype for the Canadian Urban Seismology Project, intended to gather weak motion data in the short-term, and produce near-realtime shake maps in the long-term. Sites were placed at the Ottawa Observatory and the Eco-Musee (rock), Glebe High School (<5 m soil), Westminster Avenue (10 m soil), and Fallingbrook (18 m soil). After careful attention to site noise characteristics, the trigger thresholds were set in the range 0.02- 0.12 %g. Observatory recorded a magnitude 3 earthquake at 50 km distance in January 2002, and then all stations (less Eco-Musee which had flooded) recorded a Mw 5.0 event at 190 km in April 2002. Remarkably, two instruments recorded a Mw 3.7 aftershock. We have analyzed the 6 records for consistency and find significant amplification and sharp resonance peaks in the Fallingbrook site. Although strong ground motion records are of the greatest value, these weak motion records help to calibrate engineering models in the linear range of soil behavior. Some degree of extrapolation will probably be required to predict local effects for damaging strong motions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColeoptera: Cerambycidae studiesFrench-language works237,207