MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019362613

Fire suppression performance of water mist systems with additives

2000· article· en· W7019362613 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMistExtinguishmentFire protectionDiesel fuelCombustionPlumeConfined space
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water mist systems have been demonstrated to be effective fire suppression systems. Flame cooling and oxygen displacement by steam are considered to be dominated mechanisms of extinguishment by water spray and it is known that fine water mists are more efficient than coarser sprinkler sprays at absorbing heat. Recently, National Research Council of Canada (NRC), initiated a study to determine the effectiveness of fine water mist system in extinguishing open space fires using single fluid swirl-type nozzles. In the study, the effectiveness of using small amounts of foam forming additives in the fine water mist was also investigated. tests were conducted using wood crib fires, and heptane and diesel pool fires. This paper summarizes the results of the experiments that compared the relative importances of different suppression mechanisms of the fine water mist system as well as teh effectiveness of using additives in the water mist.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207