Bibliographic record
Abstract
Montreal is the second largest metropolitan centre in Canada. It is exposed to significant seismic hazards and ranks second in urban seismic risk in Canada. The seismicity of Eastern Canada is controlled by intraplate earthquakes. The damages caused by the earthquakes on infrastructures depend on the quake magnitude, distance from the epicentre and the type of underlying soil deposit. The surficial deposits and landscape of Montreal have been shaped by many geological episodes. Alternate periods of glaciation and melting, deposited considerable quantities of soft soil, and were later altered by the emergence of the Champlain Sea, depositing clay and sand layers. Lastly, the influence of the St Lawrence River and its secondary channels deposited fine and coarse materials on the river banks. Unconsolidated cohesionless soil with water leads to liquefaction phenomenon during earthquakes. Various researches have been carried out on, the nature of soil deposits in Montreal and Microzonation of the Island of Montreal. The objective of this thesis is to map liquefaction hazard for the Island of Montreal. The methodology consists of using 'the Simplified procedure', developed by Seed and Idris (1971) and updated by Youd et al., (1998), to obtain the factor of safety against liquefaction. SHAKE2000 is used to perform the analysis. A comprehensive data on the type of soil and standard penetration number was required to perform this analysis, which was provided by the City of Montreal. The resulting maps of this analysis illustrate the liquefaction hazard of the region in terms of factor of safety against liquefaction for two earthquake magnitudes, 7.5 and 5.5.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".