Fire Statistics Workshop summary: fire statistics for the protection of Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes the discussion that took place during the workshop on Fire Statisticsi, on April 25 & 26, 2005 in Ottawa. The workshop was organized by the National Research Council of Canada in collaboration with the International Association of Fire Fighters, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, representatives of the Provinces & Territories, National Fire Protection Association, Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada, Canadian Wood Council, Canadian Forces, Health Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Indian & Northern Affairs Canada, and the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation. A number of topics in relation to fire statistics collection were discussed including: government support, resources, education, participation, privacy, needs, a unified reporting system, accuracy, delay, and software. This report also presents the results of the discussion on required steps to establish a centre for fire statistics collection.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.013 |
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".