MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966531371 · doi:10.1177/1042391509360266

A Survey of Fire Loads in Elementary Schools and High Schools

2010· article· en· W1966531371 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
George Hadjisophocleous

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fire Protection Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoison controlEngineeringForensic engineeringInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsTransport engineeringMathematics educationPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a fire load survey of schools in Ottawa, Canada. The survey was conducted from February 2009 to May 2009. Four elementary schools and three high schools with a total floor area of 6313.0 m 2 were surveyed. In the elementary schools, three types of rooms were surveyed: classrooms, computer rooms, and libraries. In the high schools, five types of rooms: classrooms, computer rooms, science rooms, art rooms, and libraries were surveyed. The floor area, window area, and percentage of floor area covered by furnishings are also provided. The results show that the mean fire load density for classrooms in the elementary schools is 397.5 MJ/m 2 , which is about twice that in the surveyed high schools. The mean value of total fire load density for all the surveyed rooms in elementary schools is 426.3 MJ/m 2 and that for high schools is 313.7 MJ/m 2 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fire Protection EngineeringSame topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207