MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973710307 · doi:10.1007/s10694-019-00902-z

Guidance on Design and Construction of the Built Environment Against Wildland Urban Interface Fire Hazard: A Review

2019· review· en· W2973710307 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Technology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaLunds Universitet
KeywordsWildland–urban interfaceHazardEnvironmental planningFire protectionWork (physics)UrbanizationEnvironmental resource managementRisk analysis (engineering)Transport engineeringEngineeringArchitectural engineeringCivil engineeringBusinessEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fires, a worldwide problem, are gaining more importance over time due to climate change and increased urbanization in WUI areas. Some jurisdictions have provided standards, codes and guidelines, which may greatly help planning, prevention and protection against wildfires. This work presents a wide systematic review of standards, codes and guidelines for the design and construction of the built environment against WUI fire hazard from North American, European, Oceanic countries, alongside with trans-national codes. The main information reviewed includes: the definition of WUI hazards, risk areas and related severity classes, the influence of land and environmental factors, the requirements for building materials, constructions, utilities, fire protection measures and road access. Some common threads among the documents reviewed have been highlighted. They include similar attempts at: (a) defining WUI risk areas and severity classes, (b) considering land factors including the defensible space (also known as ignition zones), (c) prescribing requirements for buildings and access. The main gaps highlighted in the existing standards/guidelines include lacks of detailed and widespread requirements for resources, fire protection measures, and lacks of taking into account environmental factors in detail. The main design and construction principles contained in the reviewed documents are largely based on previous research and/or good practices. Hence, the main contributions of this paper consist in: (a) systematically disseminate these guidance concepts, (b) setting a potential basis for the development of standards/guidelines in other jurisdictions lacking dedicated WUI fire design guidance, (c) highlighting gaps in existing standards/guidelines to be addressed by current and future research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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