MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392151451 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2023-0450

Video analysis of human behaviour during wildfire evacuations

2024· article· en· W4392151451 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Hannah Carton, John Gales, Eric B. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Wildland–urban interfacePoison controlTransport engineeringClimate changeTraffic congestionEnvironmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringComputer scienceComputer securityEnvironmental healthEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfire impacts are increasing due to the multiplicative effect of several factors, including climate change, increased vulnerability in the wildland-urban interface, and impacts of management decisions. This has also led to an increase in evacuations due to the number of wildfires and people affected. This study collected information on behaviour during wildfire evacuation to fill critical research gaps in human behaviour and evacuation knowledge. Seven videos of residents’ evacuations from the 2016 Fort McMurray fire were collected from public platforms. Their routes were analyzed, and notable behavioural events were recorded. The evacuees mainly used major roads before getting onto the highway (the only route available for vehicular egress). The notable behaviours observed included using opposite lanes and driving outside of marked roads to avoid congestion. Much of the observed behaviours appeared to be motivated by the surrounding traffic or fire behaviour, further supporting the need for further studies of evacuation.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207