MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989874082 · doi:10.1002/fam.774

What fire statistics tell us about our fire and building codes for housing and small buildings and fire risk for occupants of those structures

2001· article· en· W1989874082 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Leslie R. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueFire and Materials · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFPInnovations
KeywordsFire safetyFire protectionEngineeringActive fire protectionArchitectural engineeringForensic engineeringBuilding codeEnvironmental scienceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Annual reports on fire losses in Canada and the United States are in part, report cards on the efficacy of fire safety provisions in our building and fire codes and on the efforts to reduce risk for the occupants of those buildings. This paper attempts to assess what recent fire‐loss statistics indicate about how successful those efforts have been. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFire and MaterialsSame topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207