MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1644268358 · doi:10.1109/coase.2015.7294280

Using real-time sensing data for predicting future state of building fires

2015· article· en· W1644268358 on OpenAlexaff
Cheng-Chun Lin, Guanchao Zhao, Liangzhu Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData assimilationSAFERFirefightingComputer scienceReal-time computingKalman filterSmokeBig dataEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyData miningArtificial intelligenceComputer securityGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of sensor technologies in recent years makes it possible to acquire real-time states of building environment and its systems with a major trend towards big data and wireless data transmission. How to use these vast real-time data sets to achieve a safer, more comfortable and energy efficient building becomes a major challenge for building engineering. This paper investigates one of the possibilities of using the real-time data for the prediction of future fire development states. Beyond simply reflecting the real-time states of a system, the sensing data will be able to forecast a highly dynamic problem of building fire growth and smoke dispersion inside building environment. This paper presents the forecasting method based an ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) to predict building fire smoke temperature and smoke layer height at the real time. Detailed formulations of the zonal fire smoke models and the EnKF model are presented. The proposed real-time forecasting method is demonstrated and validated by a 1:5 scaled compartment fire experiment. The results indicate that real-time forecasting of building fires is achievable while the accuracy is noticeable which can be applied to assist emergency evacuation and firefighting.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207