MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115771248 · doi:10.71846/18-wcee-1219

FEMA P-58 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL, VANCOUVER, CANADA

2025· article· en· W7115771248 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
KeywordsLimitingComponent (thermodynamics)Building codeSeismic analysisEarthquake resistant structuresEarthquake engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new St. Paul’s Hospital, currently under construction in Vancouver, is designed as a post-disaster facility in accordance with the 2019 Vancouver Building By-law (building code). Post-disaster design for earthquake loading per the building code provisions involves the use of an importance factor of 1.5 and limiting interstorey drifts to 1%, amongst other requirements to limit irregularities. As the hospital will play an essential role in the post-earthquake response and recovery of the community, additional assessments beyond the requirements of the building code were conducted to better predict the post-earthquake performance of the facility. The assessment methodology as outlined in the FEMA P-58: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings was utilized to assess the facility’s performance based on its specific site characteristics, structural and non-structural components, medical equipment, and occupancy. This paper presents an overview of two methods that were used to determine and then present and summarize the FEMA P-58 assessment’s outputs to various stakeholders: 1) floor-by-floor breakdown of repair costs and repair times for various component groups with emphasis on equipment crucial to post-earthquake functionality of the facility 2) component-by-component damage state data breakdown translated from numbers into written statements. This information helped various technical and non-technical stakeholders including the design professionals understand the impact of seismic damage and confirm/improve design decisions.

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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · 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