Understanding Human Behaviour in Stressful Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The events of September 11, 2001 have shocked the public imagination regarding the safety of highrise buildings. Prior to these events, the reluctance to evacuate upon hearing the fire alarm signal was regularly observed in highrise buildings. Following the tragic events of September 11, many highrises were totally evacuated on minimal cues. The perception of risk seems to have been heightened right after the event but will this condition last over time? Highrise buildings are seldom meant to be totally evacuated. The strategy used instead is phased evacuation or a protect-in-place approach. Today during an emergency, are highrise building occupants prepared to stay in and wait to be instructed before leaving the building? Studies should investigate the risk perceived by highrise building occupants since September 11 and how these perceptions might change over time. Further studies should compare highrise occupant intention of response during an emergency and actual response through unannounced drills. Authorities, architects and engineers need these findings in order to appropriately design buildings, fire safety systems, training materials and instructions provided to occupants during an emergency. Background The content of this paper was greatly inspired by discussions with different colleagues, particularly with Drs. Rita Fahy, Brian Meacham and Jim Flynn. In partnership with these scientists, a study proposal was submitted in December 2001 for a Small Grant for Exploratory Research Proposal to the National Science Foundation (Fahy et al., 2001). Although the proposal was unsuccessful at the time, the questions and variables tackled are still of the utmost importance for the future of fire safety in highrise structures. Consequently, these issues are reiterated her...
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".