MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W326825253

A Risk Assessment Approach for Selecting a Replacement for Halon 1301 Fire Suppressant

2001· article· en· W326825253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Burch, S. R. Kennett, Lyn E. Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Fire protectionWaste managementEngineeringForensic engineeringComputer scienceBusinessCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Halon 1301 has been the primary gaseous fire suppressant for total flooding applications on naval vessels since the mid 1960s. The speed and assurance of extinguishment has made it the popular choice, but other factors also contribute to its suitability as a fire suppressant. These factors include the ease of which the agent is dispersed, the minimal residue after release, its electrical non-conductivity and the minimal risk associated with short-term human exposure. Halons however, are ozone depleting substances and under the Montreal Protocol, production of these substances have been be subjected to a controlled phase-out. A number of Halon 1301 alternatives have been assessed using a risk analysis approach. The analysis comprised identifying suppressant selection criteria and rating the suppressants against each criterion and each criterion was rated on the basis of its level of importance in different applications. Rating both suppressant behaviour and the importance of each of the criteria ensures that the end use is given due consideration in suppressant selection.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207