A Review of Ventilation Systems and Fire Incidents on Ships: A Bibliometric and Mathematical Modelling Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and refinement of air ventilation systems aboard ships are paramount for ensuring safety and operational efficiency.This comprehensive review systematically evaluates the existing literature on shipboard air ventilation and associated fire incidents, employing both bibliometric analysis and mathematical modeling methodologies.It has been observed that ventilation systems are predominantly classified into three categories: mechanical ventilation, natural ventilation, and hybrid systems combining mechanical ventilation with air conditioning (AC).These systems are imperative for regulating temperature, particularly in critical areas such as engine rooms, and for mitigating risks related to leaks and fires.International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards are consistently adhered to, reinforcing the effectiveness of these systems in controlling onboard environments.Furthermore, the application of mathematical models offers significant insights, facilitating the calculation and prediction of outcomes pertinent to ventilation-related research.These models prove crucial for addressing prevalent issues such as leaks and fire hazards within the maritime industry.Conversely, a bibliometric analysis highlights emerging research trends, identifying "ventilation," "ship," "Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)," "ship engine," "leakage," and "fire onboard" as focal keywords.This analysis not only underscores the current research focus but also guides future investigations, encouraging ongoing advancement and innovation in maritime research.This review thus serves as a vital resource for researchers aiming to explore and expand upon the thematic areas identified, potentially leading to breakthroughs in the design and implementation of ship ventilation systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.071 | 0.099 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".