MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384920015 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2023.060503

Design study of fire risk early warning robot

2023· article· en· W4384920015 on OpenAlex
Baoyi Liao

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire Detection and Safety Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarning systemManual fire alarm activationALARMFire detectionFirefightingRisk analysis (engineering)False alarmFlexibility (engineering)Fire protectionComputer scienceEngineeringComputer securityForensic engineeringArtificial intelligenceArchitectural engineeringBusinessCivil engineeringTelecommunicationsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an important means of fire prevention, fire risk detection and early warning can timely alarm in the early stage of fire spread, strive for the golden time for fire extinguishing personnel, and have the value of reducing the loss of life and property caused by fire. Nowadays, the fire risk detection and early warning technology has developed to the stage of fire risk warning robot. With the flexibility and intelligence of the early warning robot, the accuracy of fire warning will be further improved, and the probability of false alarm and false alarm in the fire warning detection will be reduced, so as to promote the improvement of fire safety management level.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.242 · 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