MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210472716 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2021-0426

Crowd behaviour in Canadian football stadia — Part 2: Modelling

2022· article· en· W4210472716 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kathryn Chin, T. R. Young, Bronwyn Chorlton, Danielle Aucoin, John Gales

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSFPE Foundation
KeywordsStadiumFootballParametric statisticsPedestrianDemographicsSimulationAccelerationTransport engineeringDistribution (mathematics)Flow (mathematics)Computer scienceStatisticsEconometricsMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyEngineeringMathematicsDemographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Part 1, a novel data collection exercise of a Canadian Stadium was conducted. Demographic distribution, pedestrian speed, exit and route choice, and areas of congestion were quantified using high resolution cameras. Herein, a numerical model space is built to simulate these observations in conventional software while exemplifying proper techniques. The simulations showed that using real-world behavioural data can significantly improve the accuracy of the model. When using lowest cost inputs rather than behavioural inputs, the maximum percent difference between the model and the observed egress was 15% higher. Parametric simulations showed that individual walking speeds impact overall egress time. This is in addition to crowd density also being a factor that further reduced speed. In simulations with only the fastest and slowest demographics, the maximum percent difference was 9%. Further parametric simulations increased the amount of two directional flow by 10%, which (non-linearly) increased the total egress time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207