MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042983902

Recherche en incendie: des chercheurs de l'IRC évaluent l'emplacement des alarmes incendie dans les établissements correctionels du Canada

2004· article· fr· W7042983902 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlContext (archaeology)Animal life
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les exigences actuelles du Code national du bâtiment posent un problème dans les établissements correctionnels canadiens, où les détenus déclenchent intentionnellement de fausses alarmes ou vandalisent les détecteurs de fumée qui sont situés dans leur cellule, comme l'exige le code. Les fausses alarmes et les détecteurs qui ne fonctionnent plus mettent en danger la vie des détenus et font perdre du temps aux gardiens qui doivent enquêter sur la cause du bris, et ils entraînent des coûts importants pour les autorités qui doivent faire inspecter et remplacer les détecteurs endommagés.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicForensic Fingerprint Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207