Indoor site safety assessment method and device, electronic equipment and medium

Abstract

Embodiments of the present application disclose an indoor site safety evaluation method and device, electronic equipment and storage medium. By obtaining multi-dimensional data of the indoor site to be evaluated and risk level interval division results of the same type reference site, combining the dynamic weight of the static safety dimension, the single-dimensional level result is determined in three risk scenarios, and finally the comprehensive safety level is obtained. The scheme gets rid of the dependence on the "win, draw and lose" three states, and even in the case of similar evaluation data, the differentiated judgment of the level result can be realized through scene subdivision, solving the problem that the level result does not change in the existing technology. At the same time, the setting of the dynamic weight can adapt to the change of the real-time environmental risk, so that the evaluation result is more in line with the actual safety situation, providing accurate basis for subsequent differentiated safety supervision, and improving the fine level of indoor site safety management.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of information processing technology, specifically to an indoor venue safety assessment method, apparatus, electronic device, and storage medium. Background Technology

[0002] In production, operation, and daily activities, the safety of indoor venues is directly related to personal safety, property safety, and the normal conduct of activities. Current technologies for indoor venue safety assessments largely rely on the regulatory experience of law enforcement personnel, resulting in highly subjective assessments that fail to achieve precise evaluation. Some solutions introduce ELO ratings for assessment, but this method excessively depends on a "win, draw, or lose" outcome compared to similar venues. Furthermore, when both assessments are equal (a tie), the rating remains unchanged, failing to reflect the dynamic changes and subtle differences in venue safety conditions. This approach cannot meet the precise needs of indoor venue safety assessments in different scenarios, necessitating a novel method for indoor venue safety assessment. Summary of the Invention

[0003] This application provides an indoor venue safety assessment method, electronic device, apparatus, and storage medium, which can assess the safety of indoor venues in different scenarios based on the dynamic changes and differences of different venues.

[0004] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for indoor venue safety assessment, including: Acquire basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records for the indoor venue to be evaluated across multiple static safety dimensions; Obtain multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level range division results from multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed; Based on the security impact priority of the static security dimensions and the risk level of real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, the dynamic weight of each static security dimension is determined. Based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level range characteristics of the corresponding static safety dimension, the level result of the indoor venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension is determined. Based on the level results of the venue to be evaluated in each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be evaluated is obtained, so as to carry out safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be evaluated in the subsequent process based on the comprehensive safety level result.

[0005] Optionally, in some embodiments of this application, determining the dynamic weight of each static security dimension based on the security impact priority of the static security dimension and the risk level of real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data specifically includes: The security impact priority of each static security dimension is quantified and graded, with higher impact levels corresponding to higher grading levels. The risk level of real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data is divided into three levels: safe, early warning, and dangerous, with different levels corresponding to different risk coefficients. Based on the correlation between the priority classification results of static security dimensions and the corresponding dynamic environmental risk coefficients, and combined with the total correlation value of all static security dimensions, the dynamic weight of each static security dimension is calculated, and the sum of the weights of all static security dimensions is the overall weight benchmark value.

[0006] Optionally, in some embodiments of this application, when the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed match the low-risk interval characteristic judgment criteria of the corresponding static safety dimension, it is determined to be a risk-compliant scenario, specifically including: If all the hazard rectifications for the indoor areas to be evaluated are completed and there are no safety incident records within the specified time period, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be excellent. If the rectification of potential hazards in the indoor area to be evaluated is basically completed and there are no major safety incidents recorded within the specified time period, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be good. If the main rectification items for potential hazards in the indoor area to be evaluated are completed and the occurrence of safety accidents within the specified time period meets the low-risk requirement, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be qualified.

[0007] Optionally, in some embodiments of this application, when the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed fall between the low-risk and medium-risk ranges of the corresponding static safety dimension, it is determined to be a critical risk scenario, specifically including: Obtain the fluctuation of the static safety dimension assessment data for the indoor venue to be assessed within a specified time period; If the fluctuations are minor and the response efficiency for hazard rectification meets the preset timeliness standard, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be qualified. If the fluctuation is within a moderate range or the response efficiency for hazard rectification is at a general standard, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be basically qualified. If the fluctuation is large or the response efficiency for hazard rectification does not meet the preset timeliness standard, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be "needs improvement".

[0008] Optionally, in some embodiments of this application, when the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed match the characteristic judgment criteria of the medium-risk or high-risk range of the corresponding static safety dimension, it is determined to be a scenario where the risk exceeds the standard, specifically including: If the criteria for determining the characteristics of the medium-risk interval are met, and the completion of the rectification of hidden dangers meets the basic requirements, the level result of this static safety dimension is determined to be "needs improvement". If the criteria for determining the characteristics of the medium-risk zone are matched but the completion of the rectification of hidden dangers does not meet the basic requirements, or if the criteria for determining the characteristics of the high-risk zone are matched but there is no record of major safety accidents, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be unqualified. If the criteria for determining high-risk intervals are met and there are records of major safety incidents within a specified time period, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be seriously unqualified.

[0009] Optionally, in some embodiments of this application, obtaining multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level interval classification results of multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed specifically includes: Select reference indoor spaces that are consistent with the usage, spatial characteristics, and human activity characteristics of the indoor spaces to be evaluated; Collect multi-dimensional assessment data and historical safety records from all reference indoor locations, and perform standardized processing; Clustering algorithms were used to group the standardized dataset. Based on the characteristics of the assessment data, the interval of hazard rectification, and the occurrence of accidents in each group, the characteristic judgment criteria for low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk intervals were determined.

[0010] Optionally, in some embodiments of this application, obtaining the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be evaluated based on the level results of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weights specifically includes: The results of each static security dimension are quantified into corresponding score values, with excellent, good, qualified, basically qualified, need improvement, unqualified, and seriously unqualified corresponding to different score ranges. Calculate the correlation value between the quantitative score of each static security dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, and sum them to obtain the comprehensive score; The overall safety level is determined based on the range of the comprehensive score. The overall safety level is divided into multiple levels, each corresponding to a different level of safety supervision intensity.

[0011] Secondly, embodiments of this application provide an indoor safety assessment device, comprising: The first acquisition module is used to acquire basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be evaluated in multiple static safety dimensions. The second acquisition module is used to acquire multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level interval division results of multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed. The first determining module is used to determine the dynamic weight of each static security dimension based on the security impact priority of the static security dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data. The second determining module is used to determine the level result of the indoor venue to be evaluated in each static safety dimension based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data, historical safety records and risk level interval characteristics of the corresponding static safety dimension of the indoor venue to be evaluated. The assessment module is used to obtain the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the level result of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, so as to conduct safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level result.

[0012] Accordingly, this application also provides an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a processor program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the program as described in any of the methods above.

[0013] This application also provides a storage medium storing a processor program that, when executed by a processor, implements any of the methods described above.

[0014] This application provides a method, apparatus, electronic device, and storage medium for indoor venue safety assessment. After acquiring basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed across multiple static safety dimensions, it acquires multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level range division results of multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the venue to be assessed. Next, based on the safety impact priority of the static safety dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, it determines the dynamic weight of each static safety dimension. Then, based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level range characteristic judgment criteria of the corresponding static safety dimensions, it determines the level result of the indoor venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension. Finally, based on the level result of the venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, it obtains the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be assessed. This allows for subsequent safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level result. In the indoor venue safety assessment scheme provided in this application, by acquiring multi-dimensional data of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level range division results of similar reference venues, combined with the dynamic weights of the static safety dimensions, single-dimensional level results are determined according to three risk scenarios, ultimately yielding the comprehensive safety level. This solution eliminates the reliance on the "win, draw, lose" three-state system. Even when assessment data is similar, it can differentiate the rating results through scenario segmentation, solving the problem of unchanged rating results in the event of a draw in existing technologies. At the same time, the dynamic weighting setting can adapt to changes in real-time environmental risks, making the assessment results more in line with the actual safety situation. This provides a precise basis for subsequent differentiated safety supervision and improves the level of refinement in indoor venue safety management. Attached Figure Description

[0015] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the accompanying drawings described below are only some embodiments of this application. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0016] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the indoor safety assessment method provided in the embodiments of this application; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the indoor safety assessment device provided in the embodiments of this application; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the electronic device provided in the embodiments of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0017] Exemplary embodiments will now be described in detail, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. When the following description relates to the drawings, unless otherwise indicated, the same numbers in different drawings denote the same or similar elements. The embodiments described in the following exemplary embodiments do not represent all embodiments consistent with this application. Rather, they are merely examples of apparatuses and methods consistent with some aspects of this application as detailed in the appended claims.

[0018] It should be noted that, in this document, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes that element. Furthermore, components, features, and elements with the same names in different embodiments of this application may have the same meaning or different meanings, the specific meaning of which must be determined by its interpretation in that specific embodiment or further in conjunction with the context of that specific embodiment.

[0019] It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative of this application and are not intended to limit this application.

[0020] In the following description, the use of suffixes such as "module," "part," or "unit" to denote elements is solely for the purpose of illustrative purposes and has no specific meaning in itself. Therefore, "module," "part," or "unit" may be used interchangeably.

[0021] The following describes in detail the embodiments involved in this application. It should be noted that the order of description of the embodiments in this application is not intended to limit the priority of the embodiments.

[0022] This application provides an indoor venue safety assessment method, apparatus, storage medium, and smart terminal. Specifically, the indoor venue safety assessment method of this application can be executed by a smart terminal or a server, wherein the smart terminal can be a terminal. The terminal can be a smartphone, tablet computer, laptop computer, touch screen, game console, personal computer (PC), personal digital assistant (PDA), or other smart terminal. The terminal may also include a client, which can be a media playback client or an instant indoor venue safety assessment client, etc.

[0023] This application provides a method for indoor venue safety assessment, which can be executed by an electronic device or a server. This application example illustrates an indoor venue safety assessment method executed by an electronic device. The electronic device includes a touchscreen display and a processor. The touchscreen display is used to present a graphical user interface (GUI) and receive operation commands generated by the user interacting with the GUI. When the user operates the GUI through the touchscreen display, the GUI can control the local content of the electronic device in response to the received operation commands, or it can control the content on the server side in response to the received operation commands.

[0024] The indoor safety assessment solution provided in this application acquires multi-dimensional data of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level range classification results of similar reference venues. Combined with the dynamic weights of static safety dimensions, it determines the single-dimensional level result in three risk scenarios, ultimately obtaining a comprehensive safety level. This solution eliminates the reliance on "win, draw, or lose" outcomes. Even when assessment data is similar, it can differentiate the level results through scenario segmentation, solving the problem of unchanged level results in the event of a draw in existing technologies. Simultaneously, the dynamic weight settings can adapt to real-time changes in environmental risks, making the assessment results more closely reflect the actual safety situation. This provides a precise basis for subsequent differentiated safety supervision and improves the refinement of indoor venue safety management.

[0025] The following sections provide detailed descriptions of each example. It should be noted that the order in which the embodiments are described is not intended to limit the priority of the embodiments.

[0026] A method for safety assessment of indoor venues includes: acquiring basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed across multiple static safety dimensions; acquiring multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level interval division results of multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed; determining the dynamic weight of each static safety dimension based on the safety impact priority of the static safety dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data; determining the level result of the indoor venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data, historical safety records, and risk level interval characteristic judgment criteria of the corresponding static safety dimensions; and obtaining the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the level result of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, so as to subsequently conduct safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level result.

[0027] Please see Figure 1 , Figure 1This application provides a flowchart illustrating the indoor venue safety assessment method. The specific process of this indoor venue safety assessment method is as follows: Step 101: Obtain multi-dimensional data of the indoor venue to be evaluated and the risk level range classification results of the reference venue.

[0028] This step is fundamental to the security assessment. Its core objective is to collect comprehensive, accurate, and comparable data to provide reliable data support for subsequent weight calculations, level determination, and overall evaluation. The specific implementation process is as follows: The multi-dimensional data for the indoor venues to be evaluated includes three categories: basic assessment data for static safety dimensions, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records. The collection methods, content, and verification standards for each type of data are as follows, and the specific data collection process is as follows: Static safety dimensions are divided into four categories: basic requirements, fire safety, gas and electricity safety, and key hazard prevention and control. The specific assessment content and data collection methods for each category are as follows: Basic Requirements Dimension: The core assessment of the basic conditions for venue safety management is the prerequisite for safe operation of the venue. The specific assessment content includes: (1) the public disclosure of basic information of the venue, which requires verification of whether the venue name, the name and contact information of the person in charge, emergency contact information, and a copy of the business license are posted in a prominent position and whether the information is complete and clear; (2) the completeness of relevant licenses and permits, which requires verification of whether the licenses and permits related to the operation and safety of the venue are complete and valid, including the business license, fire acceptance certificate, special equipment use registration certificate (such as elevators, pressure vessels, etc.), and health certificates of employees (such as catering and beauty salons); (3) the implementation of safety production training, which requires verification of the main person in charge of the enterprise, Whether full-time safety management personnel and special operation personnel have participated in safety training and obtained qualification certificates as required, whether ordinary employees have received safety knowledge and operation skills training regularly, whether there is a complete training plan, training record, list of trainees and assessment results; (4) the establishment and implementation of safety management system, it is necessary to check whether fire safety management system, hidden danger investigation and management system, emergency response plan, gas and electricity safety management system, etc. have been formulated, whether the system is in line with the actual situation of the place, whether there is a clear division of safety responsibilities, and whether there are system implementation records (such as hidden danger investigation records, emergency drill records, etc.).

[0029] Data collection for this dimension primarily relies on on-site verification and document review. Professional assessors or safety supervision grid personnel, carrying standardized verification forms, conduct on-site inspections at the locations to be assessed. For visual indicators such as information disclosure, direct on-site observation and recording are performed. For licenses, training records, and policy documents, original documents must be verified, and photos taken for evidence preservation. For policy implementation, a comprehensive judgment must be made based on on-site inspection results and relevant records. For example, verifying whether hazard identification records are signed and whether rectification measures are clearly defined helps determine whether the policy is effectively implemented.

[0030] Fire safety dimension: The core assessment of the basic conditions for fire prevention, fire fighting and evacuation is the core dimension for preventing fire accidents. The specific assessment contents include: (1) Fire extinguishing equipment configuration, it is necessary to check whether sufficient fire extinguishing equipment (such as ABC dry powder fire extinguishers, carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, indoor fire hydrants, fire hose reels, etc.) are provided according to the area and risk level of the premises, whether the model of the fire extinguishing equipment is suitable for the fire type of the premises, whether it is within the validity period, whether the pressure is normal, whether the placement location is convenient to use, and whether there is any obstruction; (2) Fire prevention facilities compliance status, it is necessary to check whether the fire resistance rating of the building meets the relevant standards, whether the decoration materials such as walls, ceilings, and floors are non-combustible or flame-retardant materials, whether the fire compartments are clear, whether the fire doors are intact and closed, and whether there are any illegal constructions or damage to fire compartments; (3) Evacuation routes and signage, it is necessary to check whether the evacuation routes are unobstructed and whether the width meets the requirements (such as the width of the evacuation route in densely populated places is not less than 1.4 meters). (1) Whether the evacuation signs are intact and the directions are accurate, whether the emergency lighting equipment is working properly, and whether there is any illegal occupation or blockage of evacuation routes; (2) The maintenance status of fire protection facilities, and it is necessary to check whether the fire protection facilities are regularly inspected and maintained, whether there are complete maintenance records, and whether the automatic fire alarm system and automatic fire extinguishing system (if applicable) are operating normally.

[0031] Data collection for this dimension combines on-site verification with instrument testing. Assessors inspect the physical condition of fire extinguishing equipment, fire prevention facilities, and evacuation routes on-site, and use fire protection testing instruments (such as fire extinguisher pressure testers, emergency lighting illuminance testers, and fire hydrant water pressure testers) to quantitatively test equipment performance, ensuring data accuracy. For example, an emergency lighting illuminance tester is used to check whether the minimum horizontal illuminance on the ground of evacuation routes meets the standards (not less than 1.0 lx in densely populated areas, and not less than 0.5 lx in other areas); a fire hydrant water pressure tester is used to check whether the fire hydrant outlet pressure meets fire extinguishing requirements.

[0032] Gas and electricity safety dimensions: The core assessment of the safety status of the gas and electricity systems in the premises is directly related to personal and property safety and is prone to causing safety accidents such as fire, explosion, and electric shock. The specific assessment contents include: (1) Electricity safety, it is necessary to check whether the distribution box is equipped with a leakage protection device, whether the leakage protection device is working properly, whether the wires are laid in a standardized manner, whether there are any random connections or private wiring, whether the strong and weak power lines are laid separately, whether the electrical equipment is overloaded, whether the wires, sockets, and switches are aged and damaged, and whether the electrical equipment and flammable materials are kept at a safe distance; (2) Gas safety, it is necessary to check whether qualified gas cylinders and gas pipelines are used, whether the gas cylinder storage location meets the safety requirements (such as being away from fire sources and heat sources, and placed upright), whether the gas pipeline is aged, corroded, or leaking, whether the gas stove has a flameout protection function, whether a gas leak alarm is installed, whether the alarm is working properly, whether the length of the gas hose meets the standard (should not exceed 2 meters), and whether it is aged and cracked.

[0033] The data collection method for this dimension combines on-site verification with instrument testing. Assessors inspect the appearance of electrical wiring, equipment, and gas facilities on-site, use leakage current detectors to test the performance of leakage protection devices, and use gas leak detectors to check for leaks in gas pipes, valves, stoves, etc., taking photos of aging or damaged wiring and facilities. For example, leakage current detectors are used to check whether the operating current and operating time of the leakage protection device in the distribution box meet the standards (generally, the operating current should not exceed 30mA, and the operating time should not exceed 0.1s); gas leak detectors are used to check for leaks at gas pipe joints, gas stove connections, and other easily leaking areas; if the detector alarms, it indicates a potential leak.

[0034] Key Hazard Prevention and Control Dimensions: The management of critical risk points in core assessment sites that are prone to causing major safety accidents is a crucial link in preventing major safety accidents. The specific assessment content includes: (1) Illegal occupancy: It is necessary to check whether the business premises, processing workshops, and warehouses have illegally set up employee dormitories or overnight personnel, and whether there is a situation of "front shop and back residence" or "down shop and up residence" without effective fire separation; (2) Open flame use regulations: It is necessary to check whether open flames are used in prohibited open flame areas, whether hot work has been approved, and whether fire safety protection measures have been taken (such as clearing surrounding flammable materials, equipping fire extinguishers, and arranging special personnel for monitoring); (3) Storage of flammable and explosive materials: It is necessary to check whether flammable and explosive chemicals (such as alcohol, gasoline, paint, etc.) are stored in excess, and whether the storage method meets safety requirements (such as sealed storage, away from fire sources, and separate storage); (4) Blockage of fire passages: It is necessary to check whether fire passages and safety exits are blocked by goods, vehicles, debris, etc., and whether there is a situation of illegally locking safety exits; (5) Illegal charging of electric equipment: It is necessary to check whether electric bicycles, electric tricycles, etc. are charged indoors, in stairwells, or in evacuation passages, and whether there is a situation of long-term charging or illegal modification of batteries.

[0035] The data collection for this dimension primarily relies on on-site verification. Assessors conduct comprehensive inspections of all areas of the premises, focusing on identifying the aforementioned key risk points. Any discovered hazards are meticulously recorded, including their location, type, severity, and scope, and photographic evidence is taken. For example, regarding unauthorized occupancy, the number of residents, the layout of the living area, and whether necessary fire safety facilities are provided must be verified; regarding electric bicycle charging, the charging location, charging method, and whether there is dedicated personnel managing the process must be verified.

[0036] (2) Real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data acquisition Real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data is crucial for reflecting the real-time safety risks of a location. It can promptly capture dynamic changes in the safety status of the location and is primarily collected through specialized monitoring equipment installed within the site. Specific monitoring indicators and collection requirements are as follows: Environmental parameters: indoor temperature and humidity, used to assess fire risk (e.g., abnormally high temperature may indicate a fire hazard) and equipment operating environment (e.g., high temperature and high humidity may affect the safe operation of electrical equipment). Gas-related parameters: Concentration of combustible gases such as natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, used to monitor gas leak risks in real time and detect potential gas leaks in a timely manner; Firefighting-related parameters: smoke concentration and carbon monoxide concentration, used to monitor the initial risk of fire and provide data support for early fire warning; Electricity-related parameters: electrical load, voltage, and current are used to monitor electrical safety risks and promptly detect potential hazards such as overload operation and short circuits.

[0037] The installation locations of monitoring equipment should be scientifically determined based on the type of location and the distribution of risk points to ensure the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of monitoring. For example, gas concentration sensors should be installed near gas stoves, gas pipeline interfaces, gas cylinder storage areas, and other areas prone to leaks, and should be close to the ground (because gas density is generally greater than air); smoke sensors should be installed in critical areas such as business halls, warehouses, stairwells, and corridors, with a distance of no more than 0.5 meters from the ceiling and no more than 0.5 meters from the wall; electrical load monitoring equipment should be installed in the distribution box and connected in series with the main circuit to ensure accurate collection of electrical load data.

[0038] The monitoring equipment must have real-time data transmission capabilities, uploading monitoring data to the safety assessment platform in real time via wireless communication (such as 4G, 5G, LoRa, NB-IoT) or wired communication. The data transmission frequency is set according to the risk level of the location: high-risk locations (such as bars, chemical processing workshops, and large shopping malls) transmit data every 1 minute to ensure timely detection of risk changes; medium-risk locations (such as convenience stores, small processing workshops, and ordinary offices) transmit data every 5 minutes; and low-risk locations (such as small offices and small retail stores) transmit data every 10 minutes. The monitoring equipment should also have an alarm function, promptly sending alarm information to the assessment platform and the location manager when monitored indicators exceed preset thresholds for rapid response.

[0039] (3) Collection of historical security records Historical safety records reflect a site's past safety management level and risk performance, and can demonstrate trends in the site's safety status. Data sources include safety supervision platform databases, enterprise self-inspection reports, accident reporting systems, law enforcement inspection records, and hazard rectification files. Specific data collected is as follows: Status of hazard rectification: This includes the type (major hazard, general hazard), quantity, severity, and discovery time of hazards found in historical inspections (such as law enforcement inspections, enterprise self-inspections, and third-party assessments); the completion time of hazard rectification; the rectification method; the person responsible for rectification; the rectification acceptance results; the reasons for unrectified hazards; and the planned rectification timeframe. Safety incident details: This includes the types of safety incidents (such as fire, gas leak, electric shock, falling object, poisoning and suffocation, etc.) that occurred within a specified time period (such as the past 12 months or 24 months), the time of occurrence, location, scope of impact, number of casualties, economic losses, accident cause analysis, liability determination results, accident rectification measures and their implementation status, etc. Rectification response efficiency: This includes the response time from the discovery of potential hazards to the initiation of rectification, the total time for rectification completion, the response time, handling process, and handling duration of emergency response after an accident, and the implementation status of emergency drills (such as drill frequency, number of participants, and drill effectiveness).

[0040] Historical safety records are collected using a "platform retrieval + enterprise supplementation" approach. First, relevant records are retrieved from official channels such as the safety supervision department's enforcement inspection system, accident reporting platform, and grid management platform to ensure the data's authority and authenticity. For enterprise self-inspection records, internal rectification files, and emergency drill records not entered into official platforms, enterprises provide relevant supporting materials (such as self-inspection reports, before-and-after photos of rectification, drill plans and summary reports, meeting minutes, etc.). Assessment personnel verify the authenticity, completeness, and validity of these materials before incorporating them into the assessment data. For example, when verifying hazard rectification files, it is necessary to confirm whether the before-and-after photos are clear, whether the rectification measures are specific, and whether the acceptance records have been signed by relevant personnel. When verifying accident records, it is necessary to confirm whether the accident report is complete, whether the accident cause analysis is reasonable, and whether the rectification measures have been implemented effectively.

[0041] (4) Data verification and standardization To ensure the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of the assessment data, the collected multi-dimensional data needs to be validated and standardized: Data verification includes integrity verification, authenticity verification, and consistency verification. ① Integrity verification: Checking whether all types of data are complete and whether there are any missing or incomplete data. For example, if a location does not provide fire safety training records or hazard rectification files, the company must be notified to provide them. If the company cannot provide them, the missing data should be noted in the assessment and handled according to relevant rules. ② Authenticity verification: Verifying whether the data is authentic and valid. For example, verifying the authenticity of the data by comparing the validity period of licenses, training certificate numbers, monitoring equipment calibration records, and law enforcement inspection document numbers. For cases of falsified data or false records, the data in that dimension will be directly deemed invalid and handled with the lowest level of result. ③ Consistency verification: Checking whether data from different sources are consistent. For example, whether the hazard rectification status recorded in the company's self-inspection report is consistent with the records on the regulatory platform, and whether the data collected by the monitoring equipment is consistent with the on-site testing data. If there are discrepancies, further verification and confirmation are required, and on-site testing or document verification should be carried out again if necessary.

[0042] Standardization Processing: Due to differences in data formats and units from different sources and of different types, standardization processing is required to convert them into a unified format for easier subsequent calculations and analysis. For example, qualitative data (such as "all hidden dangers have been rectified," "no safety accident records," and "fire protection facilities are in good condition") are converted into standardized descriptive labels (such as "rectification completed," "no accidents," and "in good condition"); quantitative data (such as gas concentration, electrical load, and temperature collected by monitoring equipment) are normalized according to a unified range and precision to eliminate the influence of units and convert the data to the [0,1] interval; time-related data (such as rectification duration and response time) are uniformly converted to "days" or "hours" to ensure consistent data formats.

[0043] Selecting reference indoor venues and classifying them into risk level ranges is crucial to ensuring the comparability and objectivity of the assessment. A scientific risk level benchmark is established through cluster analysis of the reference venues. The specific implementation process is as follows: (1) Refer to the screening criteria and procedures for indoor venues To ensure the scientific validity of the risk level classification and the reasonableness of the assessment results, the reference indoor venue must be highly comparable to the indoor venue being assessed. Screening criteria include: Consistent Use: This means that the business type or function of the premises is the same. For example, if the premises to be evaluated are convenience stores, then the reference premises should also be convenience stores, rather than supermarkets, restaurants, pharmacies, or other business types. If the premises to be evaluated are small machine processing workshops, then the reference premises should also be machine processing workshops, with similar processing technology and product types, to avoid different risk characteristics due to industry differences.

[0044] Consistent spatial characteristics include similar building areas (e.g., if the building area of ​​the site to be evaluated is 50㎡, the building area of ​​the reference site should be between 30-80㎡, with a deviation of no more than ±60%), similar floor structures (e.g., both are single-story buildings or the same floor of multi-story buildings), consistent spatial layout types (e.g., both are open layouts or closed layouts), and similar building fire resistance ratings.

[0045] Consistent personnel activity characteristics: including similar personnel density (such as average daily traffic flow, number of people during peak hours, with a deviation of no more than ±50%), consistent personnel activity times (such as all operating during the day or including nighttime operations), and similar number of employees.

[0046] The screening process is as follows: Basic information on all indoor venues is extracted from the safety assessment database, including usage type, building area, floor structure, personnel density, operating hours, and number of employees. Screening criteria are set based on the core characteristics of the venues to be assessed, and preliminary candidate venues that meet the criteria are selected. A second review of the candidate venues is conducted to exclude venues with incomplete data (e.g., more than 30% of key assessment data is missing), abnormal safety conditions (e.g., recent major safety accidents with incomplete rectification), or abnormal operating status (e.g., closed or deregistered). The final set of reference venues is then determined. The number of reference venues must meet the sample size requirements for cluster analysis, generally not less than 50. If the number of venues of this type is small, the requirement can be appropriately reduced, but it should still be at least 30 to ensure the reliability of the risk level range division.

[0047] (2) Collection and standardization of multi-dimensional data of reference sites The multi-dimensional data collection content of the reference sites is consistent with that of the sites to be evaluated, including basic assessment data on static safety dimensions, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records. The collection methods are also the same, employing on-site verification, instrument testing, platform retrieval, and supplementary data from enterprises. After collection, data verification and standardization are performed according to the same standards as the sites to be evaluated, ensuring that all reference sites have uniform data formats, consistent dimensions, and comparability, laying the foundation for subsequent cluster analysis. For example, the electricity load data of all reference sites is normalized, and the status of hazard rectification is uniformly labeled with standardized tags such as "rectification completed," "partially rectified," and "not rectified."

[0048] (3) Specific implementation of risk level interval division The risk level intervals were divided using a clustering algorithm to group the standardized data of the reference locations, as follows: Step 401: Further clean the standardized data of the reference sites to remove outliers (such as extreme data caused by monitoring equipment failure or outliers caused by data entry errors) and duplicate data to ensure the purity of the dataset; for a small number of missing data, use mean imputation, median imputation or interpolation based on similar site data to supplement them to avoid data missingness affecting the clustering results.

[0049] Step 402: This embodiment of the invention employs the K-means clustering algorithm, which features high computational efficiency, easily interpretable results, and suitability for large-scale datasets. It can quickly cluster reference locations according to their security status. Based on the actual needs of security assessment, the number of clusters K is set to 3, dividing the area into low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk intervals; the number of clustering iterations is set to 100, and the convergence threshold is set to 0.001 to ensure stable clustering results.

[0050] Step 403: Input the preprocessed reference location dataset into the K-means algorithm and initialize 3 cluster centers (randomly select standardized data from 3 reference locations as initial centers); calculate the Euclidean distance between each reference location data and each cluster center, and assign it to the nearest cluster; recalculate the cluster centers based on all data in each cluster, and repeat the above process of distance calculation, cluster assignment, and center update until the cluster centers no longer change significantly (the change is less than the convergence threshold) or the preset number of iterations is reached, finally obtaining three clusters, corresponding to low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk ranges respectively.

[0051] Step 404: Feature Determination Criteria Extraction. Perform statistical analysis on the dataset of each cluster to extract core features across various dimensions, forming feature determination criteria for risk level intervals. These criteria must be clear, specific, and actionable to facilitate subsequent scenario matching and risk level determination for the locations to be evaluated. For example: Low-risk zone characteristics criteria: In the basic assessment data, all kinds of licenses and permits are complete and valid, the safety management system is sound and strictly implemented, the fire-fighting equipment and gas and electrical equipment are configured in accordance with the specifications and well maintained, and there are no major hidden dangers; in the historical safety records, the hidden danger rectification rate is high (not less than 90%), there are no safety accident records within the specified time period, and the rectification response efficiency is high (the rectification time for general hidden dangers does not exceed 3 working days, and the rectification time for major hidden dangers does not exceed 15 working days); the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data has been within the safe range for a long time, and there are no warnings or dangerous level records.

[0052] Criteria for determining medium-risk zones: In the basic assessment data, some licenses and permits are expired or not updated in a timely manner; the safety management system is basically sound but its implementation is not strict enough; some fire-fighting equipment and gas and electrical equipment have slight aging, untimely maintenance, or insufficient configuration; there are a few general hidden dangers; in the historical safety records, the hidden danger rectification rate is moderate (60%-90%), there are no major safety accidents, but there may be 1-2 minor safety incidents (such as small-scale smoke alarms, minor electric shocks without causing personal injury); the rectification response efficiency is average (the rectification time for general hidden dangers is 3-7 working days, and the rectification time for major hidden dangers is 15-30 working days); real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data occasionally shows a warning level, but it does not reach the danger level, and it can be dealt with in a timely manner.

[0053] High-risk zone characteristics criteria: In the basic assessment data, multiple licenses and permits are missing or do not meet the requirements; safety management systems are incomplete or not implemented; fire-fighting equipment and gas and electrical equipment have serious aging, insufficient configuration, illegal use or failure, etc., and there are multiple major hidden dangers; in the historical safety record, the hidden danger rectification rate is low (below 60%); general or above safety accidents have occurred within the specified time period; the rectification response efficiency is low (the rectification time for general hidden dangers exceeds 7 working days, and the rectification time for major hidden dangers exceeds 30 working days or is not rectified); real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data frequently shows warning levels or even danger levels, and the risk persists.

[0054] Step 102: Determine the dynamic weights for each static security dimension.

[0055] The core function of dynamic weighting is to adjust the importance of each static security dimension in the assessment based on the real-time security risk status of the site, making the assessment results more realistic and highlighting current key risk points. The specific implementation process is as follows: Step 1021: Priority quantification and grading of static security dimensions.

[0056] The core of priority quantification and grading is to determine the inherent importance of each dimension based on its impact on indoor safety, thus providing a basis for dynamic weight calculation. The implementation process is as follows: (1) Establish an expert evaluation team. The expert team consists of three types of personnel to ensure the representativeness and professionalism of the opinions: law enforcement personnel from safety supervision departments (accounting for 30%), who have rich experience in on-site supervision and are familiar with the severity of various safety hazards and key points of supervision; industry technical experts (accounting for 40%), including professional and technical personnel in fields such as fire protection engineering, electrical safety, gas safety, and safety production management, who possess profound professional knowledge and industry experience; and enterprise safety management personnel (accounting for 30%), who come from different types of indoor venues (such as commercial, production, and leisure and entertainment venues) and are familiar with the safety risks and management difficulties in the actual operation of the venues.

[0057] (2) Establish grading standards. Priority is divided into 5 levels. The higher the level, the greater the impact of that dimension on site safety. The specific grading standards are as follows: Level 1 (very low impact): The hidden dangers in this dimension may only cause minor property damage, do not affect personal safety, and have very little impact on the overall safety of the site; Level 2 (low impact): The hidden dangers in this dimension may cause local equipment failure or minor property damage, and have a potential threat to personal safety but the risk is very low; Level 3 (medium impact): The hidden dangers in this dimension may cause general safety accidents, resulting in a small number of injuries or some property damage; Level 4 (high impact): The hidden dangers in this dimension may cause major safety accidents, resulting in multiple injuries or significant property damage; Level 5 (very high impact): The hidden dangers in this dimension may cause major or particularly serious safety accidents, resulting in death or huge property damage, and have a serious impact on the public interest.

[0058] 3) Expert Scoring and Opinion Convergence. The Delphi method is used for multiple rounds of scoring to ensure the objectivity and consistency of the priority grading results: The expert team independently scores the four static security dimensions according to the grading criteria, without communication between them, and the scores are submitted anonymously. The evaluation agency statistically analyzes the first round of scoring results, calculating the mean score, standard deviation, highest score, and lowest score for each dimension, and provides feedback to each expert along with their anonymous opinions (such as the reasons given by some experts for their scores on a particular dimension). Based on the feedback and the opinions and reasons of other experts, experts can adjust their scores and submit them anonymously again. This process of summarizing, providing feedback, and scoring is repeated until expert opinions converge, i.e., the standard deviation of each dimension's score is less than a preset threshold (e.g., 0.5). At this point, the final average score of each dimension is taken as the priority grading result.

[0059] (4) Priority grading results. Based on the actual expert scoring results and the actual situation of indoor safety management, the priority grading results of the four static safety dimensions are as follows: The key hazard prevention and control dimension is directly related to major safety risk points (such as illegal occupancy, storage of flammable and explosive materials, and blockage of fire exits), and the hazards are likely to cause major safety accidents, so the priority grading result is level 5; the fire safety dimension is directly related to fire prevention and personnel evacuation, and fire is the most common and most harmful type of safety accident in indoor places, so the priority grading result is level 4; the gas and electricity safety dimension involves the use of combustible gas and electricity, and is likely to cause safety accidents such as fire, explosion, and electric shock, so the priority grading result is level 4; the basic requirements dimension is the basic condition for safety management. Although the probability of directly causing major safety accidents is relatively low, failure to meet the basic requirements will indirectly increase the probability of other safety risks, so the priority grading result is level 3. It should be noted that the priority classification result can be adjusted according to the type of venue. For example, for indoor production venues, if a large amount of flammable and explosive raw materials are used in the production process, the priority of the gas and electricity safety dimension can be adjusted to level 5; for leisure and entertainment venues with dense crowds, the priority of the fire safety dimension can be adjusted to level 5.

[0060] Step 1022: Risk level classification and risk coefficient assignment of real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data.

[0061] The core of risk level classification is to determine the current dynamic risk level of a location based on real-time monitoring data and assign corresponding risk coefficients, providing a real-time risk basis for dynamic weight calculation. The implementation process is as follows: (1) Formulation of risk level classification standards. Referring to relevant national safety standards, industry specifications and technical specifications of monitoring equipment, and in combination with the risk characteristics of indoor venues, the risk level of each monitoring indicator is divided into three levels: safe, warning and dangerous. The specific classification standards are as follows: ① Safe level: The value of the monitoring indicator is within the safe threshold range, there is no safety risk, and the venue environment is safe and stable; ② Warning level: The value of the monitoring indicator is close to the upper (or lower) limit of the safe threshold, reaching 80%-100% of the safe threshold, there is potential risk, and attention should be paid and preventive measures should be taken; ③ Danger level: The value of the monitoring indicator exceeds the safe threshold range, a clear safety risk has been formed, and if measures are not taken in time, it may lead to a safety accident.

[0062] For example, the risk level classification standards for different monitoring indicators are as follows: Gas concentration (taking natural gas as an example): The safety level is when the gas concentration is less than 10% of the lower explosive limit; the warning level is when the gas concentration is between 10% and 30% of the lower explosive limit; and the danger level is when the gas concentration is more than 30% of the lower explosive limit. Smoke concentration: The safety level is when the smoke concentration is less than 50% of the fire alarm threshold; the warning level is when the smoke concentration is between 50% and 80% of the fire alarm threshold; and the danger level is when the smoke concentration is more than 80% of the fire alarm threshold. Electrical load: The safety level is when the electrical load is less than 80% of the circuit's rated load; the warning level is when the electrical load is between 80% and 100% of the circuit's rated load; and the danger level is when the electrical load is more than 100% of the circuit's rated load. Temperature: The safety level is the temperature between 10℃ and 35℃ (the normal operating temperature range of the equipment), the warning level is the temperature between 35℃ and 45℃ or between 0℃ and 10℃, and the danger level is the temperature above 45℃ or below 0℃.

[0063] (2) Assignment of risk coefficient. The risk coefficient is used to quantify the impact of risk level on dynamic weight. The assignment principle is that the higher the risk level, the larger the risk coefficient, so that the high-risk dimension occupies a higher weight in the assessment. In this embodiment of the invention, the risk coefficient ranges from 0.8 to 1.6, and the specific assignments are as follows: the risk coefficient corresponding to the safety level is 0.8-1.0, the risk coefficient corresponding to the warning level is 1.1-1.3, and the risk coefficient corresponding to the danger level is 1.4-1.6. The specific values ​​can be adjusted according to the type of place. For example, the danger level risk coefficient of high-risk places (such as bars, chemical warehouses, and large shopping malls) can be 1.6, and the danger level risk coefficient of medium- and low-risk places (such as ordinary offices and small convenience stores) can be 1.4; for densely populated places, the warning level risk coefficient can be 1.3, and the ordinary place can be 1.1.

[0064] (3) Real-time risk assessment and risk coefficient determination. The safety assessment platform receives data uploaded by each monitoring device in real time and automatically determines the risk level of each monitoring indicator according to the preset grading standards. Then, based on the correspondence between each static safety dimension and the monitoring indicator, the risk level of each dimension is determined. For example, the gas concentration monitoring indicator corresponds to the gas electricity safety dimension. If the gas concentration is at the warning level, the risk level of the gas electricity safety dimension is warning. The smoke concentration and temperature monitoring indicators correspond to the fire safety dimension. If the smoke concentration is at the safe level and the temperature is at the warning level, the risk level of the fire safety dimension is the highest level (warning). The electricity load monitoring indicator corresponds to the gas electricity safety dimension. If the electricity load is at the dangerous level, the risk level of the gas electricity safety dimension is dangerous. The basic requirement dimension has no directly corresponding real-time monitoring indicator. Its risk level is the average of the risk levels of the other three dimensions (e.g., if the other three dimensions are safe, warning, and safe, then the basic requirement dimension is safe).

[0065] If a dimension corresponds to multiple monitoring indicators (such as the fire safety dimension corresponding to multiple indicators such as smoke concentration, temperature, and evacuation route illuminance), then the highest risk level among all indicators is taken as the risk level of that dimension to ensure that no high-risk factors are overlooked. For example, if the smoke concentration, temperature, and evacuation route illuminance corresponding to the fire safety dimension are at the safe level, then the risk level of that dimension is at the warning level.

[0066] Step 1023: Calculation and adjustment of dynamic weights.

[0067] The dynamic weights are calculated based on the correlation between the priority ranking results of the static security dimensions and the risk coefficients. A weighted summation and normalization method is used to ensure that the sum of the weights for all dimensions equals the overall weight baseline value (i.e., 1). The specific calculation formula is as follows: The dynamic weight of a certain dimension = (priority score of that dimension × risk coefficient of that dimension) / sum of (priority score × risk coefficient) of all dimensions For example, suppose the priority scores for the four static safety dimensions are: basic requirements 3 points, fire safety 4 points, gas and electricity safety 4 points, and key hazard prevention and control 5 points; and the risk coefficients for each dimension at a certain moment are: basic requirements 0.9 (safety level), fire safety 1.2 (early warning level), gas and electricity safety 1.0 (safety level), and key hazard prevention and control 1.3 (early warning level). Then the correlation values ​​for each dimension are calculated as follows: Basic requirements: 3 × 0.9 = 2.7; Fire safety: 4 × 1.2 = 4.8; Gas and electricity safety: 4 × 1.0 = 4.0; Key hazard prevention and control: 5 × 1.3 = 6.5; Total correlation value = 2.7 + 4.8 + 4.0 + 6.5 = 18.0; The dynamic weights of each dimension are: Basic requirements: 2.7 / 18.0 = 0.15; Fire safety: 4.8 / 18.0 ≈ 0.267; Gas and electricity safety: 4.0 / 18.0 ≈ 0.222; Key hazard prevention and control: 6.5 / 18.0 ≈ 0.361; Total dynamic weight = 0.15 + 0.267 + 0.222 + 0.361 = 1.0, which meets the weight normalization requirements.

[0068] Dynamic weight adjustment mechanism: Since real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data is continuously updated, dynamic weights also need to be adjusted in real time to ensure that the weights can respond promptly to changes in real-time risk at the location. The adjustment cycle is consistent with the monitoring data transmission cycle: dynamic weights are adjusted every 1 minute for high-risk locations, every 5 minutes for medium-risk locations, and every 10 minutes for low-risk locations. For example, if the gas concentration monitoring data of a location changes from a safe level (risk coefficient 1.0) to a dangerous level (risk coefficient 1.5), the correlation value of the gas and electricity safety dimension changes from 4.0 to 4 × 1.5 = 6.0, and the total correlation value becomes 2.7 + 4.8 + 6.0 + 6.5 = 20.0. The dynamic weight of the gas and electricity safety dimension becomes 6.0 / 20.0 = 0.3, a significant increase from the previous 0.222, increasing the importance of this dimension in the assessment and highlighting the current high risk of gas leakage.

[0069] Step 103: Determine the level results of each static safety dimension for the indoor venue to be evaluated, based on the specific scenario.

[0070] This step is the core of the safety assessment. By matching the multi-dimensional data of the site to be assessed with the characteristic judgment criteria of the risk level range, the single-dimensional level results are refined into three categories: risk meeting the standard, risk borderline, and risk exceeding the standard. This avoids a simple "win, draw, or lose" judgment and ensures that the level results can accurately reflect the actual safety status of the site.

[0071] First, based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data and historical security records of the site to be assessed and the risk level range characteristics of the corresponding static security dimensions, the relevant scenario is determined: Risk compliance scenario: The multi-dimensional data of the site to be evaluated fully meet or exceed the characteristic judgment criteria of the low-risk zone, there are no major hidden dangers, the historical safety record is good, the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data is stable at the safety level, and the overall safety status is excellent. Risk-critical scenario: The multi-dimensional data of the site to be assessed does not fully meet the criteria for judging the characteristics of the low-risk zone, nor does it meet the criteria for judging the characteristics of the medium-risk zone. It is in between the two, with a small number of potential hazards or minor non-compliance items. The real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data fluctuates occasionally but does not reach the warning level, or there is a warning but it can be dealt with in a timely manner. The safety status is in a transitional state. Scenarios where risks exceed standards: The multi-dimensional data of the site to be evaluated meet the characteristics of medium-risk or high-risk ranges, there are obvious hidden dangers (including general and major hidden dangers), poor historical safety record (such as low rectification rate of hidden dangers or occurrence of safety accidents), and frequent warnings or danger levels in real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, indicating clear safety risks.

[0072] The risk compliance results are divided into three levels: Excellent, Good, and Satisfactory. The assessment is differentiated based on the degree of safety of the venue. The specific assessment criteria and implementation details are as follows: (1) Excellent level judgment: The core standard is that all hidden dangers have been rectified and there are no safety accidents recorded within the specified time period.

[0073] For example, the assessment data for a convenience store (a medium-risk location) shows that, based on the basic requirements dimension, the location name, contact information of the person in charge, and a copy of the business license are all prominently displayed at the entrance. The business license, food business license, and fire safety inspection certificate are all complete and valid. The safety management system (including fire safety management system, hazard investigation and rectification system, and electrical safety management system) is sound, and the system implementation records are complete (one hazard investigation is conducted weekly, and one safety training session is conducted monthly). Historical safety records show that three general hazards were identified in the past 12 months (improper placement of fire extinguishers, incomplete signatures on safety training records, and insufficient emergency lighting), all of which have been rectified and passed re-inspection. There are no safety incident records. Real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data shows that indicators such as gas concentration, electrical load, and temperature are all within safe levels. Therefore, the basic requirements dimension for this location is rated as excellent.

[0074] (2) Good level judgment: The core standard is that the rectification of hidden dangers has been basically completed and there are no major safety accidents recorded within the specified time period.

[0075] For example, the fire safety assessment data for a small machine processing workshop (a medium-risk location) shows that the fire extinguishing equipment is fully equipped (6 ABC dry powder fire extinguishers per area), the pressure is normal, the evacuation routes are unobstructed (1.5 meters wide), the building's fire resistance rating meets requirements, and the fire compartments are clearly defined. There is one minor hazard (some safety warning signs are blurry), and the company has purchased new signs and plans to replace them within 5 working days. Historical safety records show that no major safety accidents have occurred in the past 6 months, with only one brief power outage caused by poor wiring connections, resulting in no casualties or property damage. The company has organized electricians to inspect all wiring and replaced 3 sections of aging wiring. Real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data shows that smoke concentration, temperature, and other indicators are all within safe levels. The fire safety rating for this location is determined to be good.

[0076] (3) Qualification level determination: The core standard is that the main items of the hidden danger rectification are completed and the occurrence of safety accidents within the specified time period meets the low risk requirements.

[0077] For example, assessment data for the gas and electricity safety dimension of an office space (low-risk location) shows that the distribution box is equipped with a residual current device (RCD) and is functioning normally; the wiring is laid out correctly with no haphazard connections or extensions; there are no gas leaks in the gas pipeline; and the gas stove has a flameout protection function. There is one non-core hazard (gas pipeline maintenance records were not updated in a timely manner). Historical safety records show one minor electric shock incident in the past 12 months (an employee was accidentally shocked while plugging and unplugging a computer, but no injury was caused). The company has organized electrical safety training for all employees and strengthened daily inspections of electrical equipment; no similar incidents have occurred again. Real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data shows that indicators such as electrical load and gas concentration are all within safe levels. The gas and electricity safety dimension of this location is rated as qualified.

[0078] The risk threshold scenario assessment results are divided into three levels: qualified, basically qualified, and need improvement. The assessment is differentiated based on the fluctuation of the assessment data and the efficiency of the hazard rectification response. The specific assessment criteria and implementation details are as follows: (1) Qualification level determination: The core standard is that the fluctuation of the assessment data is within a slight range and the response efficiency of the hidden danger rectification meets the preset timeliness standard.

[0079] (2) Basic qualification level judgment: The core standard is that the fluctuation of the assessment data is within a medium range or the response efficiency of the hidden danger rectification is within the general standard.

[0080] (3) Determination of the level of improvement: The core standard is that the fluctuation of the assessment data is within a large range or the response efficiency of the hidden danger rectification does not meet the preset timeliness standard.

[0081] The risk levels for scenarios exceeding the standard are divided into three categories: requiring improvement, unqualified, and seriously unqualified. The determination is differentiated based on the completion of hazard rectification and the occurrence of safety accidents. The specific determination criteria and implementation details are as follows: (1) Determination of the level to be improved: The core standard is to match the characteristics of the medium risk range and the completion of the rectification of hidden dangers meets the basic requirements.

[0082] (2) Determination of non-compliance level: The core standard is that the hazard rectification is not in line with the basic requirements, or the hazard rectification is not in line with the standard for determining the characteristics of the high-risk area but there is no record of major safety accidents.

[0083] (3) Determination of serious non-compliance level: The core standard is to match the high-risk interval characteristic determination standard and have a record of major safety accidents within a specified time period.

[0084] Step 104: Calculate the overall safety level of the indoor space to be evaluated.

[0085] This step integrates the results of various static safety dimensions with dynamic weights to obtain a comprehensive safety level, fully reflecting the overall safety status of the site and providing a scientific basis for subsequent safety supervision and risk management. The specific implementation process is as follows: To facilitate the calculation of the overall score, the results of each static security dimension are quantified into corresponding score ranges. The score ranges are set based on the degree of excellence of the results, with excellent corresponding to the highest score range and severely unqualified corresponding to the lowest score range, ensuring that the scores can accurately reflect the differences in levels.

[0086] The overall score is calculated using a weighted summation method. This involves multiplying the quantified score of each static safety dimension by its corresponding dynamic weight, and then summing the associated values ​​of all dimensions to obtain the overall score for the indoor space being evaluated. The specific calculation formula is as follows: Overall score = Σ (quantitative score of a certain dimension × dynamic weight of that dimension) For example, if a location to be assessed is a small convenience store (a medium-risk indoor commercial location), the rating results, quantitative scores, and dynamic weights for the four static safety dimensions are as follows: Basic requirements: Good, quantitative score 85 points, dynamic weight 0.15; Fire safety: Qualified, quantitative score 78 points, dynamic weight 0.28; Gas and electricity safety: Good, quantitative score 82 points, dynamic weight 0.25; Key hazard prevention and control: Qualified, quantitative score 76 points, dynamic weight 0.32; The correlation values ​​for each dimension are calculated as follows: Basic requirements: 85 × 0.15 = 12.75 points; Fire safety: 78 × 0.28 = 21.84 points; Gas and electricity safety: 82 × 0.25 = 20.5 points; Key hazard prevention and control: 76 × 0.32 = 24.32 points; Total score = 12.75 + 21.84 + 20.5 + 24.32 = 79.41 points.

[0087] This application provides a method for indoor venue safety assessment. After acquiring basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records for the indoor venue to be assessed across multiple static safety dimensions, it obtains multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level interval classification results for multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the venue to be assessed. Then, based on the safety impact priority of the static safety dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, it determines the dynamic weight of each static safety dimension. Finally, based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level interval characteristics of the corresponding static safety dimensions, it categorizes the venue into risk-compliant, risk-critical, and risk-critical categories. The indoor venue safety assessment scheme provided in this application determines the level of the indoor venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension based on three scenarios of exceeding risk standards. Finally, based on the level of the venue in each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, the comprehensive safety level of the indoor venue to be assessed is obtained. This allows for subsequent safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level. By acquiring multi-dimensional data of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level range division results of similar reference venues, and combining the dynamic weights of static safety dimensions, the single-dimensional level results are determined in three risk scenarios, ultimately yielding the comprehensive safety level. This scheme eliminates the reliance on the "win, draw, lose" three-state condition. Even when the assessment data is similar, it can achieve differentiated judgment of the level results through scenario subdivision, solving the problem of unchanged level results in the case of a draw in existing technologies. At the same time, the setting of dynamic weights can adapt to changes in real-time environmental risks, making the assessment results more consistent with the actual safety situation, providing accurate basis for subsequent differentiated safety supervision, and improving the refinement level of indoor venue safety management.

[0088] To facilitate better implementation of the indoor venue safety assessment method of this application embodiment, this application embodiment also provides an indoor venue safety assessment device, wherein the meanings of the terms are the same as those in the above-described indoor venue safety assessment system, and specific implementation details can be found in the description of the system embodiment.

[0089] Please see Figure 2 , Figure 2 The diagram below illustrates the structure of an indoor venue safety assessment device provided in this application embodiment. Specifically, the device may include a first acquisition module 201, a second acquisition module 202, a first determination module 203, a second determination module 204, and an assessment module 205, as follows: The first acquisition module 201 is used to acquire basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be evaluated in multiple static safety dimensions. The second acquisition module 202 is used to acquire multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level interval division results of multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed. The first determining module 203 is used to determine the dynamic weight of each static security dimension based on the security impact priority of the static security dimension and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data. The second determining module 204 is used to determine the level result of the indoor venue to be evaluated in each static safety dimension based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data, historical safety records and risk level interval characteristics of the corresponding static safety dimension of the indoor venue to be evaluated, and in three scenarios: risk compliance, risk threshold and risk exceeding the standard. The assessment module 205 is used to obtain the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the level result of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, so as to conduct safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level result.

[0090] This application provides an indoor venue safety assessment device. A first acquisition module 201 acquires basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed across multiple static safety dimensions. A second acquisition module 202 acquires multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level interval division results of multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed. Next, a first determination module 203 determines the dynamic weight of each static safety dimension based on the safety impact priority of the static safety dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data. Then, a second determination module 204 matches the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed with the risk level interval characteristic judgment criteria of the corresponding static safety dimensions. The assessment module 205 determines the safety level of the indoor venue under evaluation based on three scenarios: risk compliance, risk threshold, and risk exceeding the standard. This results in a comprehensive safety level assessment of the venue across each static safety dimension. The assessment module 205 then uses the dynamic weights of these weights to obtain the overall safety level of the indoor venue. This comprehensive safety level assessment allows for subsequent safety supervision and risk management of the venue. The indoor venue safety assessment scheme provided in this application obtains multi-dimensional data of the venue under evaluation and risk level ranges from similar reference venues. Combined with the dynamic weights of the static safety dimensions, single-dimensional level results are determined across three risk scenarios, ultimately yielding the comprehensive safety level. This scheme eliminates reliance on a simple "win, draw, lose" outcome. Even with similar assessment data, it allows for differentiated level determination through scenario segmentation, solving the problem of unchanged level results in the event of a draw in existing technologies. Furthermore, the dynamic weights adapt to real-time environmental risk changes, making the assessment results more consistent with actual safety conditions. This provides a precise basis for subsequent differentiated safety supervision and improves the precision of indoor venue safety management.

[0091] Furthermore, embodiments of this application also provide an electronic device, such as... Figure 3 As shown, it illustrates a structural schematic diagram of the electronic device involved in the embodiments of this application, specifically: The electronic device may include components such as a processor 301 with one or more processing cores, a memory 302 with one or more processor-readable storage media, a power supply 303, and an input unit 304. Those skilled in the art will understand that... Figure 3 The electronic device structure shown does not constitute a limitation on the electronic device and may include more or fewer components than shown, or combine certain components, or have different component arrangements. Wherein: Processor 301 is the control center of the electronic device. It connects various parts of the electronic device via various interfaces and lines. By running or executing software programs and / or modules stored in memory 302, and by calling data stored in memory 302, it performs various functions and processes data, thereby providing overall monitoring of the electronic device. Optionally, processor 301 may include one or more processing cores; preferably, processor 301 may integrate an application processor and a modem processor. The application processor mainly handles the operating system, user interface, and applications, while the modem processor mainly handles wireless indoor security assessments. It is understood that the modem processor may not be integrated into processor 301.

[0092] The memory 302 can be used to store software programs and modules. The process 301 executes various functional applications and indoor safety assessment methods by running the software programs and modules stored in the memory 302. The memory 302 may mainly include a program storage area and a data storage area. The program storage area may store the operating system, application programs required for at least one function (such as sound playback function, image playback function, etc.), etc.; the data storage area may store data created based on the use of the electronic device, etc. In addition, the memory 302 may include high-speed random access memory, and may also include non-volatile memory, such as at least one disk storage device, flash memory device, or other volatile solid-state storage device. Accordingly, the memory 302 may also include a memory controller to provide the process 301 with access to the memory 302.

[0093] The electronic device also includes a power supply 303 that supplies power to various components. Preferably, the power supply 303 can be logically connected to the processor 301 through a power management system, thereby enabling functions such as charging, discharging, and power consumption management through the power management system. The power supply 303 may also include one or more DC or AC power supplies, recharging systems, power fault detection circuits, power converters or inverters, power status indicators, and other arbitrary components.

[0094] The electronic device may also include an input unit 304, which can be used to receive input digital or character information and generate keyboard, mouse, joystick, optical or trackball signal inputs related to user settings and function control.

[0095] Although not shown, the electronic device may also include a display unit, etc., which will not be described in detail here. Specifically, in the embodiments of this application, the processing 301 in the electronic device loads the executable files corresponding to the processes of one or more applications into the memory 302 according to the following instructions, and the processing 301 runs the applications stored in the memory 302 to realize various functions, as follows: The process involves acquiring basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records for the indoor venue to be assessed across multiple static safety dimensions; acquiring multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level range division results for multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the venue to be assessed; determining the dynamic weight of each static safety dimension based on the safety impact priority of the static safety dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data; determining the level result of the indoor venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level range characteristics of the corresponding static safety dimensions, categorizing the scenarios into three types: risk compliance, risk threshold, and risk exceeding the standard; and obtaining the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the level result of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, so as to conduct subsequent safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level result.

[0096] For details on the implementation of each of the above operations, please refer to the previous examples, which will not be repeated here.

[0097] This application's embodiment acquires multi-dimensional data of the indoor venue to be evaluated and the risk level range division results of similar reference venues. Combined with the dynamic weights of static safety dimensions, it determines the single-dimensional level result in three risk scenarios, ultimately obtaining the comprehensive safety level. This solution eliminates the reliance on "win, draw, or lose" states. Even with similar evaluation data, it can achieve differentiated level determination through scenario segmentation, solving the problem of unchanged level results in the event of a draw in existing technologies. Simultaneously, the dynamic weight settings can adapt to real-time changes in environmental risks, making the evaluation results more closely reflect the actual safety situation. This provides a precise basis for subsequent differentiated safety supervision and improves the refinement of indoor venue safety management.

[0098] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the steps in the various methods of the above embodiments can be performed by instructions, or by instructions controlling related hardware. These instructions can be stored in a processor-readable storage medium and loaded and executed by a processor.

[0099] Therefore, embodiments of this application provide a storage medium storing a plurality of instructions that can be loaded by a processor to execute steps in any of the indoor safety assessment methods provided in embodiments of this application. For example, the instructions can execute the following steps: The process involves acquiring basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records for the indoor venue to be assessed across multiple static safety dimensions; acquiring multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level range division results for multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the venue to be assessed; determining the dynamic weight of each static safety dimension based on the safety impact priority of the static safety dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data; determining the level result of the indoor venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed and the risk level range characteristics of the corresponding static safety dimensions, categorizing the scenarios into three types: risk compliance, risk threshold, and risk exceeding the standard; and obtaining the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the level result of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, so as to conduct subsequent safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level result.

[0100] For details on the implementation of each of the above operations, please refer to the previous examples, which will not be repeated here.

[0101] The storage medium may include: read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), disk or optical disk, etc.

[0102] Since the instructions stored in the storage medium can execute the steps in any of the indoor safety assessment methods provided in the embodiments of this application, the beneficial effects that any of the indoor safety assessment methods provided in the embodiments of this application can achieve can be realized. For details, please refer to the previous embodiments, which will not be repeated here.

[0103] The above provides a detailed description of an indoor safety assessment method, apparatus, electronic device, and storage medium provided in the embodiments of this application. Specific examples have been used to illustrate the principles and implementation methods of this application. The descriptions of the above embodiments are only for the purpose of helping to understand the method and core ideas of this application. At the same time, for those skilled in the art, there will be changes in the specific implementation methods and application scope based on the ideas of this application. Therefore, the content of this specification should not be construed as a limitation of this application.

Claims

1. A method for safety assessment of indoor locations, characterized in that, include: Acquire basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, and historical safety records for the indoor venue to be evaluated across multiple static safety dimensions; Obtain multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level range division results from multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed; Based on the security impact priority of the static security dimensions and the risk level of real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data, the dynamic weight of each static security dimension is determined. Based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data, historical safety records and risk level range characteristics of the indoor venue to be assessed and the corresponding static safety dimension, the level result of the indoor venue to be assessed in each static safety dimension is determined. Based on the level results of the venue to be evaluated in each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be evaluated is obtained, so as to carry out safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be evaluated in the subsequent process based on the comprehensive safety level result.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of determining the dynamic weight of each static security dimension based on the security impact priority of the static security dimensions and the risk level of real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data specifically includes: The security impact priority of each static security dimension is quantified and graded, with higher impact levels corresponding to higher grading levels. The risk level of real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data is divided into three levels: safe, early warning, and dangerous, with different levels corresponding to different risk coefficients. Based on the correlation between the priority classification results of static security dimensions and the corresponding dynamic environmental risk coefficients, and combined with the total correlation value of all static security dimensions, the dynamic weight of each static security dimension is calculated, and the sum of the weights of all static security dimensions is the overall weight benchmark value.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed match the low-risk zone characteristic judgment criteria of the corresponding static safety dimension, it is determined to be a risk-compliant scenario, specifically including: If all the hazard rectifications for the indoor areas to be evaluated are completed and there are no safety incident records within the specified time period, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be excellent. If the rectification of potential hazards in the indoor area to be evaluated is basically completed and there are no major safety incidents recorded within the specified time period, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be good. If the main rectification items for potential hazards in the indoor area to be evaluated are completed and the occurrence of safety accidents within the specified time period meets the low-risk requirement, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be qualified.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed fall between the low-risk and medium-risk ranges of the corresponding static safety dimension, it is determined to be a critical risk scenario, specifically including: Obtain the fluctuation of the static safety dimension assessment data for the indoor venue to be assessed within a specified time period; If the fluctuations are minor and the response efficiency for hazard rectification meets the preset timeliness standard, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be qualified. If the fluctuation is within a moderate range or the response efficiency for hazard rectification is at a general standard, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be basically qualified. If the fluctuation is large or the response efficiency for hazard rectification does not meet the preset timeliness standard, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be "needs improvement".

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the basic assessment data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be assessed match the criteria for determining the medium-risk or high-risk range of the corresponding static safety dimension, it is determined to be a scenario where the risk exceeds the standard, specifically including: If the criteria for determining the characteristics of the medium-risk interval are met, and the completion of the rectification of hidden dangers meets the basic requirements, the level result of this static safety dimension is determined to be "needs improvement". If the criteria for determining the characteristics of the medium-risk zone are matched but the completion of the rectification of hidden dangers does not meet the basic requirements, or if the criteria for determining the characteristics of the high-risk zone are matched but there is no record of major safety accidents, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be unqualified. If the criteria for determining high-risk intervals are met and there are records of major safety incidents within a specified time period, the result of the static safety dimension is determined to be seriously unqualified.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The acquisition of multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level range division results for multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed specifically includes: Select reference indoor spaces that are consistent with the usage, spatial characteristics, and human activity characteristics of the indoor spaces to be evaluated; Collect multi-dimensional assessment data and historical safety records from all reference indoor locations, and perform standardized processing; Clustering algorithms were used to group the standardized dataset. Based on the characteristics of the assessment data, the interval of hazard rectification, and the occurrence of accidents in each group, the characteristic judgment criteria for low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk intervals were determined.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be evaluated is obtained based on the level results of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weights, specifically including: The results of each static security dimension are quantified into corresponding score values, with excellent, good, qualified, basically qualified, need improvement, unqualified, and seriously unqualified corresponding to different score ranges. Calculate the correlation value between the quantitative score of each static security dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, and sum them to obtain the comprehensive score; The overall safety level is determined based on the range of the comprehensive score. The overall safety level is divided into multiple levels, each corresponding to a different level of safety supervision intensity.

8. An indoor safety assessment device, characterized in that, include: The first acquisition module is used to acquire basic assessment data, real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data and historical safety records of the indoor venue to be evaluated in multiple static safety dimensions. The second acquisition module is used to acquire multi-dimensional assessment data and risk level interval division results of multiple reference indoor venues of the same type as the indoor venue to be assessed. The first determining module is used to determine the dynamic weight of each static security dimension based on the security impact priority of the static security dimensions and the risk level of the real-time dynamic environmental monitoring data. The second determining module is used to determine the level result of the indoor venue to be evaluated in each static safety dimension based on the degree of matching between the basic assessment data, historical safety records and risk level interval characteristics of the corresponding static safety dimension of the indoor venue to be evaluated. The assessment module is used to obtain the comprehensive safety level result of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the level result of each static safety dimension and the corresponding dynamic weight, so as to conduct safety supervision and risk control of the indoor venue to be assessed based on the comprehensive safety level result.

9. An electronic device, characterized in that, include: A memory, a processor, and a processor program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the program as steps of the indoor venue safety assessment method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A storage medium, characterized in that, The computer processing program is stored and can be loaded by a processor to execute the indoor venue safety assessment method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images