MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102556990 · doi:10.5555/1218112.1218489

Using a CFD simulation in designing a smoke management system in a building

2006· article· en· W2102556990 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsSmokeFire Dynamics SimulatorCFD in buildingsMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceSystem dynamicsFire safetySimulationComputer scienceEngineeringAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineeringCivil engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study on the effectiveness of a smoke exhaust system in a complex building using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models. The CFD model FDS (Fire Dynamics Simulator) was used for this study. To simulate fires in the building a design fire was selected to represent the fire loads expected in the lobby area. Smoke movement from the origin of fire in the lobby and smoke contamination in the interconnected corridors are simulated in order to design the exhaust system to be capable of maintaining tenable conditions in the corridor used for evacuation. The results of these simulations are presented and discussed.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.256 · 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