MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122736352 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3873

DEVELOPING PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE FIRE SERVICE TO ENHANCE FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES

2011· article· en· W2122736352 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
David A. Torvi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFire protectionFire protection engineeringService (business)Architectural engineeringProcess (computing)EngineeringEngineering design processEngineering managementBusinessCivil engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire protection engineering is increasing in importance in Canada and other countries, especially with recent changes to building and fire codes. Fire protection engineering design is highly interdisciplinary, which can present challenges when developing courses in this area. At the University of Saskatchewan, this challenge has been partially addressed through partnerships with the fire service, and other universities and research organizations. This paper discusses the importance of considering the fire service in the design process, and provides examples of partnerships with the fire service in the Mechanical Engineering undergraduate program and in graduate research projects.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207