MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801941941

The development of automatic fire protection methods for computing and telecommunications areas

2003· dissertation· en· W2801941941 on OpenAlex
Paul Carter

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCLOK (University of Central Lancashire) · 2003
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntimeEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Fire protectionMontreal ProtocolComputer securityProcess (computing)Key (lock)Protocol (science)TelecommunicationsOperations managementComputer scienceBusinessReliability engineeringCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With highly accelerated developments in computing and communications technology, society's overall dependence on this equipment is becoming increasingly acute. In areas such as critical electronic data processing centres and telecommunication hubs, one of the main protection objectives is to achieve minimum operational disruption, as
\ndowntime resulting from a fire condition could lead to huge financial losses. Minimising negative impact on an organization and the need for a sound basis in the decision making process are the fundamental reasons why companies implement fire risk management for their essential information technology systems. For many years a key element used to protect these critical assets was the installation of a fixed Halon 1301 gas extinguishing system. Often, the mere presence of a computer was sufficient justification to install such a system and little thought was given to any systematic fire risk assessment of the installation. This led to the use of Halon 1301 where other fire extinguishing systems and protection techniques could have been applied with equal effectiveness and at comparable costs.
\nThe cessation of production of halon as a result of the Montreal Protocol gave fresh impetus to the development of suitable alternative fire extinguishing agents. It also offered fire protection engineers an opportunity to re-evaluate existing loss control techniques and to examine alternative fire protection strategies. However, it is argued in this study, that an appropriate level of automatic fire protection can only be determined by the use of a suitable quantitative risk assessment and a number of such methodologies are critically examined. There are a significant number of contributing factors that must be considered when deciding which fire suppression system to select for a new installation or whether to retrofit fire suppression on a legacy platform.
\nConsequently, it is necessary to develop a methodology to quantify any fire suppression technology by its life cycle cost and then to apply informed technical opinion into this system. The results of this assessment procedure offer a number of
\npossible fire engineering solutions including a quite diverse range of automatic fire extinguishing techniques and these are discussed and evaluated in detail. Inevitably, a high proportion of such critical risks will require the installation of an automatic fire suppression system. The main halocarbon and inert replacement extinguishing agents are therefore critically compared and contrasted for their suitability in protecting these facilities. A complete review of these extinguishing agents was conducted which focused on suppression mechanisms; quantification of their performance and qualities;
\ninteraction with a fire and potential damage to electrical equipment from the release of a given agent. It is shown that all the post-halon extinguishing agents are deficient in some important areas. Major issues such as the formation of thermal decomposition products, the protection of continuously energized electrical circuits and the adequacy of the specified design and extinguishing concentrations have generally not been adequately addressed. Unfortunately, some of these issues are not even resolved in the current gaseous fire extinguishing standards which offer minimal advice from either a design or installation standpoint. This study demonstrates that existing international design standards are deficient in some fundamental areas and that, in a number of circumstances, systems installed to these standards are inadequate to fully protect the hazard in question. A number of recommendations are presented to address some of these deficiencies. Finally, a semi-quantitative risk assessment methodology for the selection of suitable extinguishing agents is proposed. Initially, this attempts to synthesize the results derived from the critical extinguishing agent review and then applies an application weighting factor based on expert consensus to provide a final score for a particular suppression mechanisms suitability to protect a given application.

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.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.306 · 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