Consultation sur les immeubles résidentiels avec une seule sortie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report provides a summary of a targeted consultation organized by the National Research Council (NRC) on the topic of single egress construction in residential occupancies. The consultation was conducted with a consultation group (CG) formed from stakeholders, representing the fire safety value-chain, through a series of meetings. The CG was divided into two subgroups with provincial and territorial (P/T) representatives in one subgroup and design professionals, industry and the fire services in the other. In addition, observers were permitted to attend the meetings and to also provide input. The CG shared their knowledge and experience on the topic of single egress in residential occupancies, provided feedback, guidance and validation on the following issues: 1. Scope for a subsequent research work and case studies (P/Ts subgroup members only); 2. Potential building designs (“archetypes”) for the research work; 3. Approach and methods to guide the research; 4. Strategies to evaluate hazards and associated risks for single egress in residential occupancies. A total of five meetings were facilitated for the consultation. Two meetings were organized for each subgroup separately, followed by a concluding meeting with the two subgroups combined. Each meeting had a similar structure, starting with a short presentation given by the NRC, followed by a facilitated discussion in which CG members were asked to provide their input. Throughout the consultation, the CG members touched on these commonly raised topics: accessibility, firefighting operations, training and education of emergency responders and occupants, human factors, safety of occupants and emergency responders, economic viability, risk assessment, as well as challenges associated with emerging technologies. This report describes the consultation approach and a summary of what the NRC heard during the meetings. As such, the report presents the collected information and comprises primarily a summary of comments received during the meetings without further detailed analysis. Further, this report captures additional comments and materials received after the meetings, so that other future efforts may also benefit from the comments shared by attendees. The insights shared by the CG and reported here will serve to inform the development of the scope and methodology for follow-up foundational research work. That work will examine the equivalence of single-egress solutions to existing fire safety requirements in current codes and provide information for the consideration of potential code changes in the National Model Codes through the Harmonized Code Development System.
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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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".