MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146299557 · doi:10.1504/ijdsrm.2009.031117

An analytical method for halon alternative selection in fire suppression systems design

2009· article· en· W2146299557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Massimo Bertolini, Giuseppe Vignali

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Decision Sciences Risk and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFire protectionDamagesAnalytic hierarchy processEnvironmental scienceMontreal ProtocolRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEnvironmental resource managementOzone layerEngineeringBusinessOperations researchCivil engineeringMeteorologyOzoneLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cleanliness is the priority property of an active fire-extinguishing agent for protection of expensive electronic equipment and high value materials. Halon 1301 was considered the most suitable clean agent to ensure industrial fire safety because it leaves no residue and allows a high level of extinction efficiency and human safety, as with many other extinguishing media. However, over 15 years ago, several studies showed that this agent damages the atmospheric ozone layer and causes global warming. As law has ruled out halon agents, a variety of clean fire suppression alternatives has surfaced over the past decade, but none of these has become the 'perfect' halon substitute. In this paper the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach is proposed as a tool to select the best halon alternative for fire protection. A hierarchical structure comprising 19 criteria is reported here to illustrate the performance and characteristics of several halon alternatives in order to define the most suitable agent for different fire risk situations.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Decision Sciences Risk and ManagementSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207