A Comparison of the 1993 and 2001 evacuation of the World Trade Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the World Trade Center in New York City was bombed in 1993, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) undertook a study of the evacuation of the towers. This study involved a survey of the participants in the fire safety plan for the towers, including particularly the floor fire wardens. Surveys were sent to a total of 1,598 employees, with over 400 responding. These surveys were the basis of several papers published on the actions and reactions of the occupants of the towers during that evacuation. Immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the authors began compiling first-person accounts from the media describing the evacuation of the two towers that day. Although media accounts are not necessarily reliable accounts of events, and certainly do not provide the scientific rigor of a proper study, they do provide important insights into the events of the day. Of particular interest was the role that improvements made after the bombing in 1993 may have had in the evacuation in 2001.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".