Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout history, objects of art have been damaged and sometimes destroyed in earthquakes. Even though the importance of providing seismically adequate design for nonstructural components has received attention over the past decade, art objects in museums, either on display or in storage, require further research. The research reported in this study was undertaken to investigate the seismic vulnerability of art objects. Data for this research was gathered from three museums in Montreal. The seismic behaviour of three unrestrained display cases, storage shelves, and a 6m long dinosaur skeleton model structure was investigated according to the seismic hazard for Montreal and representative museum floor motions were simulated for that purpose. Particular attention was paid to the support conditions, the effects of modified floor surface conditions, the sliding and rocking response of unrestrained display cases, the location (floor elevation) of the display case and/or storage shelves, art object mass, and the dynamic properties of the display cases/storage shelves. The seismic vulnerability of art objects was evaluated based on the seismic response of the display cases/storage shelves at the level of art object display. The display cases were investigated experimentally using shake table testing. Computer analyses were used to simulate the seismic behaviour of storage shelves, and the seismic sensitivity of the dinosaur structure was determined via free vibration acceleration measurements. The floor contact conditions and floor elevation had a crucial effect on the unrestrained display cases, causing them to slide or rock vigorously. The distribution of content mass had a large impact on the response of the shelving system. As a result of experimental and analytical analyses, recommendations and/or simple mitigation techniques are provided to reduce the seismic vulnerability of objects of art.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".