MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593667664 · doi:10.17975/sfj-2016-006

Relevance of Emergency Requests and Emergency Station Placement

2016· article· en· W2593667664 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tommy Xiang, Allen Bai, Steffen Cucos

Bibliographic record

VenueSTEM Fellowship Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Medical emergencyGeographyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data sets on Toronto’s safety statistics [1-5], which included the number of accidents, ambulance calls, and crimes were used to produce color-coded maps of Toronto to show “hot spots” in terms of calls to emergency services. The goal of this study was to explore disproportionately high number of requests in some areas - hot spots -compared to the average, and to see if these areas were further away from first responders than areas receiving fewer calls in comparison. We showed that there are neighborhoods in Toronto that can be considered hotspots for emergency requests, and that they are further or similarly distanced from first responders than other neighborhoods with lower accident counts. This project was done for the Big Data Challenge, hosted by the STEM Fellowship, by our group, consisting of three high school students.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTEM Fellowship JournalSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207