MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115735815 · doi:10.71846/18-wcee-0507

COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGIES FOR QUANTIFICATION OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE FACTORS IN US AND CANADA

2025· article· en· W7115735815 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Conference of Earthquake Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic analysisCode (set theory)Seismic riskSelection (genetic algorithm)Earthquake engineeringBuilding code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The FEMA P695 was developed in U.S. to address the need for consistent and rational quantification of the required parameters defining building system performance (R, Cd, Omega) and response in the Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7). The FEMA P-695 document focuses on evaluating structural systems for new construction, with the objective of minimizing the risk of structural collapse under maximum considered earthquake. The procedure considers factors like the R factor, displacements, and material detailing to achieve a target design ductility. The intention was for this methodology to be adopted by ASCE/SEI 7, setting minimum design criteria for code-approved systems, and guiding the selection of criteria for other systems. The document also serves as a basis for evaluating code-approved systems and potentially modifying or eliminating those that cannot meet seismic performance objectives reliably. Similarly, National Research Council Canada (NRC) recently developed and published a performance-based unified (PBU) procedure for the determination of seismic force modification factors (ductility-related, Rd, and over-strength related, Ro) of different seismic force-resisting systems (SFRS) in the National Building Code of Canada (NBC). While this recently developed procedure is primarily inspired by the FEMA P-695 methodology, it is yet devised with a few additional features to: 1) benefit from the concepts of performance-based design by assessing the seismic performance of buildings, not only for collapse prevention, but also for other performance levels (i.e., life safety and immediate occupancy); and 2) reduce the number of laborious Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) runs via a two-tiered screening procedure. The PBU procedure intends to provide a more balanced approach to evaluate different SFRSs and quantify the seismic force modification factors in the NBC by using nonlinear static and time history analyses, as well as IDA as needed. The PBU procedure also considers the different sources of uncertainties in performance assessments using both screening and IDA. In this paper, the PBU procedure is compared with the FEMA P695 procedure, via a seismic performance assessment of a few SFRSs in the NBC.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.218 · 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