A Simulation Study to Suggest an Emergency Exits in Mosul’s Mosques in Case of Emergency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly every mosque in Mosul has one or two gates that are essentially arranged on one wall opposing the Qibla wall. The worshipers would be unable to flee if an explosion or arson at the wall of those gates causes the gates to close, either from the inside or the outside. As a result, evacuation would be challenging or impossible. International architectural codes do not contain any specific requirements for fire safety precautions in mosques. However, the mosque prayer hall is essentially an assembly hall that frequently hosts huge crowds of attendees during prayer times. International building regulations stipulate that these assembly buildings must have multiple emergency exits. This study clarifies the issue and offers solutions by designing alterative emergency exits on the side walls or the Qibla wall, which would allow worshipers to leave the mosque prayer hall in an emergency while still meeting the time requirements established by well-known international codes, as well as the standards for fire safety precautions and means of escape. The simulation was realized on the software tool called Pathfinder.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".