The pros and cons of protect-in-place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of people have died in the process of evacuating buildings during fires, particularly in highrise buildings. These casualties are found in corridors and stairwells, away from the room of fire origin. The fire safety approach has always been to assume that as long as the fire did not start in the means of egress, corridors and stairwells were safe. Contrary to this belief, a number of fires have shown that apart from the compartment of fire origin, corridors and stairwells are probably the most dangerous places to be during a fire. In North America, the evacuation procedure for highrise buildings requires that upon hearing the fire alarm signal, occupants should evacuate the building by the closest exit and if they encounter smoke, to use an alternative exit. This approach has led to a number of casualties in highrise fires. Further, it is disturbing to observe that, in the same fires, occupants who decided to stay in their apartments, even on the fire floor, were safe. Although several fire case studies demonstrate the positive outcome of the protect-in-place strategy, this strategy is not proposed for all buildings. The choice of this strategy should depend on the occupant characteristics and building characteristics. For example, it could be required that the building be equipped with sprinklers, be made of non-combustible construction with self-closers on all compartment entry doors, etc. It is the local fire department that should evaluate the context and establish the specific criteria if a building is suitable for a protect-in-place strategy. One of the difficulties with this new strategy is educating the public. In the past, the message has always been "when you hear the fire alarm signal, leave the building immediately"; now the message would be "when you hear the fire alarm signal, stay where you are and prepare to protect-in-place". Although it is a complete change of message, it might not be that difficult for highrise building occupants to make the shift since they are already quite reluctant to evacuate when the fire alarm is activated. This strategy offers added safety for all occupants including occupants with disability as long as occupants are prepared to follow instructions. In light of the events at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 where some of the occupants who decided to stay in place and follow instructions might be among the victims and many who decided to disobey instructions and evacuated were safe, implications for the implementation of the protect-in-place strategy will be discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".