Evaluation of CANUTEC services EVALUATION OF CANUTEC SERVICES- A SURVEY OF FIRST RESPONDERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everyone involved in emergency response knows the importance of having access to critical and timely information during an incident. The Canadian Transport Emergency Centre (CANUTEC) assists emergency response personnel in handling dangerous goods emergencies. To evaluate the level of impact that CANUTEC has amongst first responders, a survey was conducted early in 2009. A 2-page questionnaire was sent to fire departments and police services across Canada. 46 % responded. More than 85 % of respondents were aware of CANUTEC, similarly for the Emergency Response Guidebook. 43 % of respondents have used CANUTEC’s emergency telephone service while 68 % of respondents used the Guidebook for training, simulation or actual emergency response. The great majority of respondents who used the services were satisfied with the assistance obtained. RÉSUMÉ Les gens impliqués dans le domaine de l’intervention d’urgence reconnaissent l’importance d’avoir accès à de l’information critique de façon rapide lors d’un incident. Le Centre canadien d’urgence transport (CANUTEC) vient en aide aux intervenants d’urgence lors d’incidents de marchandises dangereuses. Pour évaluer le niveau d’impact de CANUTEC par rapport aux premiers intervenants, un sondage a été effectué en début d’année. Un questionnaire de deux pages fut envoyé dans tout le Canada aux services d’incendies et aux postes de police. 46 % ont répondu. Plus de 85 % des répondants connaissaient CANUTEC; il en était de même pour le Guide des mesures d’urgence. 43 % des répondants ont utilisé le service téléphonique d’urgence de CANUTEC alors que 68 % des répondants ont utilisé le Guide pour des formations, simulations ou interventions d’urgence réelles. La grande majorité des répondants qui ont utilisé les services étaient satisfaits de l’assistance reçue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".