MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361216049 · doi:10.1007/s11069-023-05913-2

The verification of wildland–urban interface fire evacuation models

2023· article· en· W4361216049 on OpenAlexaff
Enrico Ronchi, Jonathan Wahlqvist, Adam Ardinge, Arthur Rohaert, S. Gwynne, Guillermo Rein, Harry Mitchell, Nikolaos Kalogeropoulos, Max Kinateder, Noureddine Bénichou, Erica D. Kuligowski, Amanda Kimball

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Hazards · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyLunds Universitet
KeywordsProtocol (science)Computer sciencePedestrianPopulationSimulationTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a protocol for the verification of multi-physics wildfire evacuation models, including a set of tests used to ensure that the conceptual modelling representation of each modelling layer is accurately implemented, as well as the interactions between different modelling layers and sub-models (wildfire spread, pedestrian movement, traffic evacuation, and trigger buffers). This work presents a total of 24 verification tests, including (1) 4 tests related to pedestrians, (2) 15 tests for traffic evacuation, (3) 5 tests concerning the interaction between different modelling layers, along with 5 tests for wildfire spread and trigger buffers. The evacuation tests are organized in accordance with different core components related to evacuation modelling, namely Population, Pre-evacuation, Movement, Route/destination selection, Flow constraints, Events, Wildfire spread and Trigger buffers. A reporting template has also been developed to facilitate the application of the verification testing protocol. An example application of the testing protocol has been performed using an open wildfire evacuation modelling platform called WUI-NITY and its associated trigger buffer model k-PERIL. The verification testing protocol is deemed to improve the credibility of wildfire evacuation model results and stimulate future modelling efforts in this domain. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11069-023-05913-2.

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)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural HazardsSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207