MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015870999

Understanding human performance in ship evacuation

2012· article· en· W7015870999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafeguardCertificationData collectionProtocol (science)Benchmark (surveying)Framing (construction)Component (thermodynamics)Maritime safetySuite
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to develop realistic and robust maritime evacuation procedures, it is vital to understand how passengers behave in emergency situations. An essential component of this understanding is the collection and characterization of human performance data. However, little data relating to passenger response time or fullscale validation data in maritime environments exists. Although the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) evacuation protocol Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) Circ. 1033 and its successor, MSC Circ. 1238, are of great use, it is known in the industry that the existing data is not representative of passenger ships in general. \nThe SAFEGUARD project addresses the IMO Fire Protection Sub Committee’s requirement to collect full-scale data for calibration and validation of ship-based evacuation models, as well as proposing and investigating additional benchmark scenarios to be used in certification analysis. Funded through the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme, the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Corporation and Transport Canada (Marine Safety), SAFEGUARD has brought together leading industry experts and the project findings will play an integral role in framing the next iteration of international guidelines for ship evacuation analysis. \nThis essay describes the methodology undertaken within the full-scale assembly trials that were carried out – one of which included the largest ever real-life assembly trial on a passenger ship. The main findings are presented and highlight what this will mean for the future of ship evacuation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich)Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207