MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W599175047

ARFF international training standards: one goal, several agencies

2013· article· en· W599175047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Y Whitaker

Bibliographic record

VenueAirport Magazine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil aviationAeronauticsAgency (philosophy)AviationFire protectionEngineeringTraining (meteorology)FirefightingAdministration (probate law)Aviation engineeringService (business)Aviation safetyTransport engineeringInternational airportBusinessPolitical scienceCivil engineeringLawGeographyMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of the world's airports are represented by five regulatory authorities: the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), The Air Accident Investigation Branch (as part of the United Kingdom's department of transportation, as well as its Civil Aviation Authority, and Transport Canada. Two international Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) publications have become the global standard, as follows: the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)'s 1003 Standard for Airport Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, as well as NFPA 402, 403, 405, 412, 414, 415 and 424, which can all be referenced for airport use; and the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) training manuals, written by fire fighters for fire fighters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.035

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAirport MagazineSame topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207