MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735368710 · doi:10.1177/0734904115605099

Performance testing of wildland fire chemicals using a custom-built heat flux sensor

2015· article· en· W2735368710 on OpenAlexaff
Shammawi A A Anderson, André McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fire Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgnition systemCombustionEnvironmental scienceFire testRadiant fluxPoison controlRadiant heatingRadiant heatTest methodHeat fluxNuclear engineeringTransient (computer programming)Forensic engineeringAutomotive engineeringWaste managementMaterials scienceEngineeringHeat transferComposite materialComputer scienceChemistryMechanicsAerospace engineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple and effective laboratory test methodology was developed for differentiating wildland fire chemicals based on the ignition time of vegetative fuel samples. The test apparatus consisted of an electric-powered radiant heater that was used to produce a uniform radiant thermal load to ignite the vegetative fuel samples. The samples, treated with wildland fire chemicals, were mounted on to a load cell to determine the transient mass loss during the combustion process. A custom-built heat flux sensor, that was modified and tested to reduce high errors, was used to determine the time to flaming ignition. The time to flaming ignition was also measured using transient mass loss data of the vegetative fuel samples. Statistical t-test analysis was conducted on the time to flaming ignition to determine whether the results were statistically significant for the different chemical treatments. The results indicated that the test methodology allowed for effective differentiation between the wildland fire chemical treatments by comparing their mean ignition times. The narrow standard deviations of the average ignition times suggested that the test methodology was able to produce repeatable results.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fire SciencesSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207