MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319596722 · doi:10.1007/s10694-023-01371-1

Roxborough Park Community Wildfire Evacuation Drill: Data Collection and Model Benchmarking

2023· article· en· W4319596722 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Gwynne, Enrico Ronchi, Jonathan Wahlqvist, Arturo Cuesta, Javier González‐Villa, Erica D. Kuligowski, Amanda Kimball, Guillermo Rein, Max Kinateder, Noureddine Bénichou, Hui Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Colorado BoulderNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeLunds UniversitetRMIT UniversityUniversidad de CantabriaEuropean CommissionU.S. Department of CommerceFire Protection Research FoundationImperial College London
KeywordsBenchmarkingDrillData collectionEngineeringTransport engineeringEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringComputer scienceBusinessStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfires are increasing in scale, frequency and longevity, and are affecting new locations as environmental conditions change. This paper presents a dataset collected during a community evacuation drill performed in Roxborough Park, Colorado (USA) in 2019. This is a wildland-urban interface community including approximately 900 homes. Data concerning several aspects of community response were collected through observations and surveys: initial population location, pre-evacuation times, route use, and arrival times at the evacuation assembly point. Data were used as inputs to benchmark two evacuation models that adopt different modelling approaches. The WUI-NITY platform and the Evacuation Management System model were applied across a range of scenarios where assumptions regarding pre-evacuation delays and the routes used were varied according to original data collection methods (and interpretation of the data generated). Results are mostly driven by the assumptions adopted for pre-evacuation time inputs. This is expected in communities with a low number of vehicles present on the road and relatively limited traffic congestion. The analysis enabled the sensitivity of the modelling approaches to different datasets to be explored, given the different modelling approaches adopted. The performance of the models were sensitive to the data employed (derived from either observations or self-reporting) and the evacuation phases addressed in them. This indicates the importance of monitoring the impact of including data in a model rather than simply on the data itself, as data affects models in different ways given the modelling methods employed. The dataset is released in open access and is deemed to be useful for future wildfire evacuation modelling calibration and validation efforts. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10694-023-01371-1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFire TechnologySame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207