Experiments of Sprinkler Protected Ceiling/Floor Assemblies in a Basement Fire Scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second fire scenario involved both the more challenging fire location (in the southeast corner of the fire room; at the edges of the sprinkler coverage) and a much more aggressive fire. To test the limit of the residential sprinkler system, a deep-seated test fire was used and two litres of methyl hydrate was used to ignite the stacked large wood cribs of 1.5-m high. This arrangement of the fuel package and ignition source produced a severe fire with an ultra fast growth rate. It is recognized that the ultra-fast fire is an extreme case, which is not a commonly-occurring fire in residential settings and may represent a limited number of fire scenarios including a possible arson scenario. Since the water spray from the pendent sprinkler could not reach the ceiling space where the fire was developing, the exposed CPVC sprinkler piping installed in that space failed due to heat. This led to the interruption of the water spray, the full involvement of the room in fire, and eventually the collapse of the wood I-joist test assembly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".