Proceedings of the first workshop organized by the IAFSS Working Group on Measurement and Computation of Fire Phenomena (MaCFP)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a report of the discussions held at the first workshop on Measurement and Computation of Fire Phenomena (MaCFP) on June 10-11 2017. The first MaCFP work-shop was both a technical meeting for the gas phase subgroup and a planning meeting for the condensed phase subgroup. The gas phase subgroup reported on a first suite of experimental- computational comparisons corresponding to an initial list of target experiments. The initial list of target experiments identifies a series of benchmark configurations with databases deemed suitable for validation of fire models based on a Computational Fluid Dynamics approach. The simulations presented at the first MaCFP workshop feature fine grid resolution at the millimeter- or centimeter- scale: these simulations allow an evaluation of the performance of fire models under high-resolution conditions in which the impact of numerical errors is reduced and many of the discrepancies between experimental data and computational results may be attributed to modeling errors. The experimental-computational comparisons are archived on the MaCFP repository [1]. Furthermore, the condensed phase subgroup presented a review of the main issues associated with measurements and modeling of pyrolysis phenomena. Overall, the first workshop provided an illustration of the potential of MaCFP in providing a response to the general need for greater levels of integration and coordination in fire research, and specifically to the particular needs of model validation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it