Economic Costs of Residential Fires: A Systematic Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, most fire-related deaths and injuries occur in residential areas. The aim of this systematic review is to report on the economic costs of residential fires from a societal perspective. Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, CINAHL, and Scopus) and grey literature were searched to identify studies that report economic or societal costs of residential fires with data from 1978 to 2021. There were no restrictions on study design. A narrative synthesis was undertaken based on the societal and economic costs reported for each included study. Seven studies from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Kuwait reported costs of residential fires. The costs of injuries and deaths were between USD 12 million and USD 5 billion, and between USD 75 million and USD 26 billion, respectively. The costs of treatment ranged from USD 0.3 million to USD 551 million, lost productivity from USD 12 million to USD 4 billion, and property damage from USD 8 million to USD 10 billion. This systematic review provides the most comprehensive evidence to date on the economic costs of residential fires. This study would offer insights into the effects of residential fires on diverse economic agents and aid in community fire prevention messaging and incentives.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it