LOW-COST SEISMIC ISOLATION IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research interest in low-cost seismic isolation technology has been increasing over the past two decades. Activity in this area has led to the development of numerous unique low-cost isolation systems (e.g., unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators, flat sliders, scrap tire pad isolators, and composite systems that combine two or more types of isolators). Often, the term ‘low-cost’ is used to specifically refer to the cost of the isolation device. The research community has comparatively overlooked other aspects of the life-cycle cost of a low-cost isolation system such as the performance, maintenance and replacement, design, and prototype testing requirements. Canada has severely lagged other countries in terms of application of seismic isolation technology. Most single-family residential structures in Canada are designed and constructed according to Part 9 of Division B of the National Building Code of Canada (or a similar provincial standard) using non-engineering methods. Such structures perform well from a life-safety perspective but may sustain severe economic losses during an earthquake. Currently, application of seismic isolation requires comprehensive engineering and prototype testing which form substantial perceived cost barriers. In this paper, these cost barriers and a proposed pathway to widespread low-cost application of seismic isolation technology in Canada are reviewed. These challenges are then presented from the perspective of developing and underdeveloped countries. Areas of future research are identified and discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".