MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103406067 · doi:10.3801/iafss.fss.8-877

Development And Case Study Of A Risk Assessment Model Curisk For Building Fires

2005· article· en· W2103406067 on OpenAlexaff
George Hadjisophocleous, Zhizhong Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Safety Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrame (networking)Fire safetyHazardFire hazardBoundary (topology)Risk modelRisk assessmentEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceMathematicsComputer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fire risk computer model CUrisk is being developed at Carleton University to evaluate fire safety designs for four-story, timber-frame commercial buildings. The model consists of the system model and a number of subsidiary submodels. The system model implements the risk analysis framework and controls data flow of the submodels; it is also responsible for calculating the life hazard of each scenario. Other submodels include Fire Growth and Smoke Movement, Boundary Failure and Fire Spread, Occupant Response and Evacuation, and Building Cost and Economic Loss. Using the outputs of the submodels, the system model calculates three decision-making parameters, the Expected Risk to Life, the Expected Risk of Injury, and the Fire Cost Expectation. These parameters are based on possible fire scenarios and their associated probabilities. This paper provides a brief description of CUrisk, and presents the results of a multi-scenario risk analysis for a four story commercial building.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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