Community Fire Risk Reduction: Longitudinal Assessment for HomeSafe Fire Prevention Program in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Residential fires represent the third leading cause of unintentional injuries globally. This study aims to offer an overview and a longitudinal evaluation of the HomeSafe program implemented in Surrey in 2008 and to assess its effectiveness in mitigating fire-related outcomes. (2) Methods: Data were collected over a 12-year period (2008-2019). Assessed outcomes comprised frequency of fire incidents, residential fires, casualties, functioning smoke alarms, and contained fires. The effectiveness of each initiative was determined by comparing the specific intervention group outcome and the city-wide outcome to the pre-intervention period. (3) Results: This study targeted 120,349 households. HomeSafe achieved overwhelming success in decreasing fire rates (-80%), increasing functioning smoke alarms (+60%), increasing the percentage of contained fires (+94%), and decreasing fire casualties (-40%). The study findings confirm that the three most effective HomeSafe initiatives were firefighters' visits of households, inspections and installations of smoke alarms, and verifications of fire crew alarms at fire incidents. Some initiatives were less successful, including post-door hangers (+12%) and package distribution (+15%). (4) Conclusions: The HomeSafe program effectively decreased the occurrence and magnitude of residential fires. Lessons learned should be transferred to similar contexts to implement an evidence-based, consistent, and systematic approach to sustainable fire prevention initiatives.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".