Pedestrian crowd tactical‐level decision making during emergency evacuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper investigates pedestrian crowd tactical‐level decision making during emergency evacuations. Of particular interest is crowd exit‐choice behaviour. Two sources of stated choice data are collected and combined. One data set is derived from an experiment linked to a real‐life exit choice experience of participants (in a non‐evacuation setting). We examine aspects that have often been taken for granted in the literature in connection with egress behaviour of crowds during emergencies. We quantify evacuees' trade‐off between “distance”, “density”, “exit visibility” and “directional density” as well as the interactive effect between exit visibility and tendency to follow others. A comprehensive random‐utility analysis is conducted ranging from traditionally practiced models to the state‐of‐the‐practice methods such as random‐coefficient nested logit. Our findings suggest that (i) unless evacuees face certain levels of uncertainty in the escape environment; flows of crowd are unlikely to be followed. Otherwise, most evacuees perceive other individuals as potential sources of congestion and extra delay (generalisation to situations where crowd is completely unfamiliar with the egress geometry, however, may require careful scrutiny). (ii) Evacuees mostly prefer visible exits over the exits whose congestion level is unknown to them (i.e. the tendency to minimise ambiguity). (iii) The presence of attribute uncertainty (e.g. exit visibility) significantly changes the impact of observing decisions of others on each individual choice maker. We also found out that (iv) spatial distribution of exits has a significant influence on evacuees' decisions (presenting itself in the form of violating the IIA assumption). (v) The marginal weights that different individuals place upon attributes of exits are significantly heterogeneous. (vi) There is meaningful correlation between certain utility weights of individual evacuees. These behavioural findings can provide significant behavioural insight essential for safe evacuation planning and accurate forecast of evacuees' behaviour. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".