MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388379991 · doi:10.3390/buildings13112779

Evacuation Solutions for Individuals with Functional Limitations in the Indoor Built Environment: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4388379991 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdulrahman Al Bochi, Brad Roberts, Waqas Sajid, Zeyad Ghulam, Mark Weiler, Yashoda Sharma, César Márquez-Chin, Steven Pong, Albert H. Vette, Tilak Dutta

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoCarleton UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWilfrid Laurier University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPreparednessVariety (cybernetics)Built environmentWork (physics)Level designComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringHuman–computer interactionCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The built environment continues to become increasingly accessible to people with disabilities, yet there remains a lack of focus on how these individuals are evacuated in emergencies. The objective of this scoping review was to survey the academic literature to identify solutions for safely evacuating individuals with functional limitations from the indoor built environment (i.e., buildings). Journal articles and conference proceedings published in the year 2002 onwards were included. Two pairs of reviewers independently evaluated 3562 articles from ten databases and identified 99 articles. The results were categorized into six main evacuation solution types: notification, wayfinding, egress, building design, strategy, and training programs. Our findings highlight the importance of tailoring solutions to the needs of individuals with different functional limitations. Future work should focus on expanding the number of solutions available for (1) emergencies beyond fires (e.g., natural disasters); (2) unique building types that may require specialized engineering considerations; and (3) a greater variety of impairments (e.g., seeing, hearing, cognitive). We also emphasize the need for more interdisciplinary work and the importance of including rescuers and rescuees in emergency preparedness discussions. These collaborations will ensure that building designs, organizational procedures, and evacuation aids complement each other to maximize safety. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to identify solutions for evacuating individuals with functional limitations from buildings. These findings may help inform future recommendations for new evacuation guidelines around the world.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207