MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118845078 · doi:10.4224/20386276

Fire alarm signal recognition

2001· article· en· W2118845078 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Guylène Proulx, Chantal Laroche, Fern Jaspers‐Fayer, Rosanne Lavallée

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsALARMComputer scienceManual fire alarm activationSIGNAL (programming language)Computer securityArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1995 National Building Code of Canada requires that fire alarm signals sound the Temporal-Three (T-3) pattern, as defined by the ISO 8201 "Acoustics - Audible Emergency Evacuation Signal". This sound pattern has also been required by NFPA 72 since July 1996. It is intended that the T-3 pattern will become the standardized alarm signal heard around the world that will unequivocally mean ieevacuate the building immediatelyly. Although new and refurbished buildings have, for the past 5 years, been equipped with this new signal, no formal public education has taken place to inform building users about the meaning and response expected from them when it sounds. In North America, discussions are ongoing regarding thenecessity to develop a public education campaign on the subject of this new evacuation signal, and whether an automatic recorded message should follow the signal to prompt the public to evacuate. As a first step, we need to ascertain if the public already recognizes this sound as an evacuation signal.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.013

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207