Evaluation of urban emergency management capabilities from perspective of safe development

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.2014

Abstract

Abstract:

To reasonably and effectively evaluate urban emergency management capability and promote the construction of modern cities, an urban emergency management capacity evaluation system was constructed from six aspects: urban safety source governance capabilities, urban safety risk prevention and control capabilities, urban safety supervision and management capabilities, urban safety assurance capabilities, urban safety emergency rescue capabilities, and urban safety emergency recovery capabilities. The G1 method combined with the entropy weight method was used to calculate the combined weight to effectively reduce the subjective factors of weight calculation. The cloud model and the material-element extensibility model were used to construct a comprehensive evaluation model to strengthen the scientificity and accuracy of the evaluation work. Then a city was taken as an example to conduct application research to verify the scientificity and effectiveness of the model. The results show that the index system can comprehensively and accurately reflect the current situation of urban emergency management capacity, and the comprehensive evaluation model can accurately and scientifically evaluate urban emergency management capacity, which can provide decision-making basis for government emergency management.

Key words: safe development, urban emergency management, capability assessment, cloud model, matter-element extension model

CHENG Fangming, WANG Chenchen, YUAN Xiaofang. Evaluation of urban emergency management capabilities from perspective of safe development[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 158-167.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Rj value reference

R_j值	含义
1.0	指标 $X j - 1$ 与X_j同等重要
1.2	指标 $X j - 1$ 比X_j稍微重要
1.4	指标 $X j - 1$ 比X_j明显重要
1.6	指标 $X j - 1$ 比X_j特别重要
1.8	指标 $X j - 1$ 比X_j极其重要

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Index scores and weights of urban emergency management capability evaluation system

指标	权重	指标	权重	指标	得分	主观权重	客观权重	组合权重	指标	权重	指标	权重	指标	得分	主观权重	客观权重	组合权重
A	0.129 0	A₁	0.050 2	A₁₁	90.9	0.615 4	0.016 9	0.026 8	C	0.177 2	C₂	0.051 5	C₂₁	81	0.449 5	0.009 5	0.017 2
		A₁	0.050 2	A₁₂	85.7	0.384 6	0.020 5	0.023 4					C₂₂	82	0.321 1	0.018 7	0.020 4
		A₂	0.078 8	A₂₁	85.6	0.316 9	0.015 0	0.018 2					C₂₃	80.5	0.229 4	0.012 1	0.013 9
				A₂₂	80.5	0.198 1	0.017 9	0.015 7			C₃	0.059 7	C₃₁	84.5	0.397 2	0.009 2	0.015 9
				A₂₃	82.5	0.141 5	0.017 5	0.013 1					C₃₂	78	0.248 2	0.010 7	0.013 6
				A₂₄	82.5	0.141 5	0.019 7	0.013 9					C₃₃	82	0.177 3	0.018 7	0.015 1
				A₂₅	80.7	0.117 9	0.012 0	0.009 9					C₃₄	77	0.177 3	0.018 7	0.015 1
				A₂₆	79.5	0.084 2	0.010 9	0.008 0	D	0.209 5	D₁	0.040 7	D₁₁	82	0.583 3	0.012 4	0.022 4
B	0.269 2	B₁	0.057 8	B₁₁	83.5	0.393 2	0.009 7	0.016 2			D₁	0.040 7	D₁₂	78.5	0.416 7	0.011 7	0.018 3
				B₁₂	81.7	0.280 8	0.018 9	0.019 2			D₂	0.052 3	D₂₁	82	0.433 0	0.010 9	0.018 1
				B₁₃	82.5	0.200 6	0.011 7	0.012 7					D₂₂	81.5	0.309 3	0.019 7	0.020 5
				B₁₄	78	0.125 4	0.010 7	0.009 7					D₂₃	81.5	0.257 7	0.010 5	0.013 7
		B₂	0.061 5	B₂₁	82	0.409 3	0.010 1	0.016 9			D₃	0.062 0	D₃₁	81.2	0.341 9	0.010 3	0.015 6
				B₂₂	81.5	0.255 8	0.019 7	0.018 7					D₃₂	80.5	0.284 9	0.017 9	0.018 8
				B₂₃	82	0.182 7	0.018 7	0.015 4					D₃₃	82.5	0.203 5	0.010 7	0.012 3
				B₂₄	82.5	0.152 3	0.010 5	0.010 5					D₃₄	79.5	0.169 6	0.020 0	0.015 3
		B₃	0.109 7	B₃₁	83.5	0.250 1	0.018 8	0.018 0			D₄	0.054 5	D₄₁	83	0.433 0	0.012 8	0.019 6
				B₃₂	80.5	0.178 6	0.012 1	0.012 3					D₄₂	76.5	0.309 3	0.019 7	0.020 5
				B₃₃	80.5	0.148 8	0.017 9	0.013 6					D₄₃	82.5	0.257 7	0.011 7	0.014 4
				B₃₄	82	0.106 3	0.018 7	0.011 7	E	0.141 7	E₁	0.074 3	E₁₁	87.5	0.344 9	0.019 7	0.021 7
				B₃₅	82	0.088 6	0.018 7	0.010 7					E₁₂	78.7	0.215 6	0.018 1	0.016 4
				B₃₆	83.5	0.063 3	0.034 9	0.012 4					E₁₃	83.7	0.154 0	0.009 4	0.010 0
				B₃₇	83	0.052 7	0.008 7	0.005 6					E₁₄	85	0.128 3	0.013 8	0.011 1
				B₃₈	79.5	0.037 7	0.035 9	0.009 7					E₁₅	84.5	0.091 7	0.010 9	0.008 3
				B₃₉	79	0.031 4	0.012 3	0.005 2					E₁₆	81.5	0.065 5	0.010 3	0.006 8
				B₃₁₀	80.5	0.026 2	0.017 9	0.005 7			E₂	0.067 4	E₂₁	81.5	0.377 4	0.019 7	0.022 7
				B₃₁₁	70.7	0.016 3	0.020 3	0.004 8					E₂₂	75.5	0.269 6	0.012 1	0.015 1
		B₄	0.040 2	B₄₁	82.5	0.545 5	0.011 7	0.021 0					E₂₃	78	0.192 6	0.018 3	0.015 6
		B₄	0.040 2	B₄₂	83.5	0.454 5	0.011 7	0.019 2					E₂₄	81	0.160 5	0.017 8	0.014 0
C	0.177 2	C₁	0.066 0	C₁₁	90.5	0.332 9	0.017 9	0.020 3	F	0.073 4	F₁	0.037 3	F₁₁	82	0.583 3	0.010 1	0.020 2
				C₁₂	90.2	0.237 8	0.011 0	0.013 4			F₁	0.037 3	F₁₂	82	0.416 7	0.010 1	0.017 1
				C₁₃	79.5	0.169 8	0.010 9	0.011 3			F₂	0.036 1	F₂₁	83	0.583 3	0.008 7	0.018 7
				C₁₄	81	0.141 5	0.012 0	0.010 8			F₂	0.036 1	F₂₂	81.5	0.416 7	0.010 5	0.017 4
				C₁₅	78	0.117 9	0.012 8	0.010 2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Index relevance

指标	关联度								等级	指标		关联度								等级
指标	j=1	j=2		j=3		j=4		j=5	等级	指标		j=1		j=2		j=3		j=4	j=5	等级
A	-0.002 0	0.001 6		-0.001 8		-0.004 1		-0.005 3	Ⅱ	B₃₇		-0.291 7		0.300 0		-0.150 0		-0.433 3	-0.575 0	Ⅱ
B	-0.006 5	0.003 7		-0.001 7		-0.008 0		-0.011 2	Ⅱ	B₃₈		-0.338 7		-0.023 8		0.050 0		-0.316 7	-0.487 5	Ⅲ
C	-0.002 6	0.008 6		-0.001 1		-0.004 5		-0.006 0	Ⅱ	B₃₉		-0.343 8		-0.043 5		0.100 0		-0.300 0	-0.475 0	Ⅲ
D	-0.003 6	0.001 3		-0.000 4		-0.004 1		-0.005 8	Ⅱ	B₃₁₀		-0.327 6		0.050 0		-0.025 0		-0.350 0	-0.512 5	Ⅱ
E	-0.003 0	0.001 5		-0.000 5		-0.004 0		-0.005 5	Ⅱ	B₃₁₁		-0.397 1		-0.240 9		0.070 0		-0.023 3	-0.267 5	Ⅲ
F	-0.000 8	0.000 6		-0.000 3		-0.001 1		-0.001 5	Ⅱ	B₄₁		-0.300 0		0.250 0		-0.125 0		-0.416 7	-0.562 5	Ⅱ
A₁	-0.003 0	0.007 7		-0.021 3		-0.031 0		-0.035 8	Ⅱ	B₄₂		-0.282 6		0.350 0		-0.175 0		-0.450 0	-0.587 5	Ⅱ
A₂	-0.023 4	0.016 0		-0.008 8		-0.032 3		-0.044 0	Ⅱ	C₁₁		0.050 0		-0.050 0		-0.525 0		-0.683 3	-0.762 5	Ⅰ
B₁	-0.017 8	0.011 3		-0.004 0		-0.022 7		-0.031 4	Ⅱ	C₁₂		0.020 0		-0.020 0		-0.510 0		-0.673 3	-0.755 0	Ⅰ
B₂	-0.019 0	0.011 9		-0.006 0		-0.024 5		-0.033 7	Ⅱ	C₁₃		-0.338 7		-0.023 8		0.050 0		-0.316 7	-0.487 5	Ⅲ
B₃	-0.034 5	0.016 8		-0.007 9		-0.040 9		-0.058 0	Ⅱ	C₁₄		-0.321 4		0.100 0		-0.050 0		-0.366 7	-0.525 0	Ⅱ
B₄	-0.011 7	0.012 0		-0.006 0		-0.017 4		-0.023 1	Ⅱ	C₁₅		-0.352 9		-0.083 3		0.200 0		-0.266 7	-0.450 0	Ⅲ
C₁	-0.009 6	0.001 3		-0.015 4		-0.033 2		-0.041 4	Ⅱ	C₂₁		-0.321 4		0.100 0		-0.050 0		-0.366 7	-0.525 0	Ⅱ
C₂	-0.016 4	0.006 5		-0.003 3		-0.019 3		-0.027 4	Ⅱ	C₂₂		-0.307 7		0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0	-0.550 0	Ⅱ
C₃	-0.019 1	0.007 3		0.002 2		-0.021 2		-0.030 6	Ⅱ	C₂₃		-0.327 6		0.050 0		-0.025 0		-0.350 0	-0.512 5	Ⅱ
D₁	-0.013 3	0.003 3		-0.000 4		-0.014 1		-0.020 8	Ⅱ	C₃₁		-0.262 0		0.450 0		-0.225 0		-0.483 3	-0.612 5	Ⅱ
D₂	-0.016 4	0.008 8		-0.004 4		-0.020 4		-0.028 3	Ⅱ	C₃₂		-0.352 9		-0.083 3		0.200 0		-0.266 7	-0.450 0	Ⅲ
D₃	-0.020 0	0.005 5		-0.002 2		-0.022 4		-0.032 3	Ⅱ	C₃₃		-0.307 7		0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0	-0.550 0	Ⅱ
D₄	-0.017 5	0.006 8		-0.002 4		-0.019 0		-0.027 8	Ⅱ	C₃₄		-0.361 1		-0.115 4		0.300 0		-0.253 3	-0.425 0	Ⅲ
E₁	-0.019 2	0.018 5		-0.013 0		-0.034 2		-0.044 2	Ⅱ	D₁₁		-0.307 7		0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0	-0.550 0	Ⅱ
E₂	-0.022 8	0.001 2		0.007 5		-0.020 8		-0.032 4	Ⅱ	D₁₂		-0.348 5		-0.065 2		0.100 0		-0.283 3	-0.462 5	Ⅲ
F₁	-0.011 5	0.007 5		-0.003 7		-0.015 0		-0.020 5	Ⅱ	D₂₁		-0.307 7		0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0	-0.550 0	Ⅱ
F₂	-0.010 9	0.008 2		-0.004 1		-0.014 8		-0.020 1	Ⅱ	D₂₂		-0.314 8		0.150 0		-0.075 0		-0.383 3	-0.537 5	Ⅱ
A₁₁	0.090 0	-0.090 0		-0.545 0		-0.696 7		-0.772 5	Ⅰ	D₂₃		-0.314 8		0.150 0		-0.075 0		-0.383 3	-0.537 5	Ⅱ
A₁₂	-0.231 2	0.430 0		-0.285 0		-0.523 3		-0.642 5	Ⅱ	D₃₁		-0.318 8		0.120 0		-0.060 0		-0.373 3	-0.530 0	Ⅱ
A₂₁	-0.234 0	0.440 0		-0.280 0		-0.520 0		-0.640 0	Ⅱ	D₃₂		-0.327 6		0.050 0		-0.025 0		-0.350 0	-0.512 5	Ⅱ
A₂₂	-0.327 6	0.050 0		-0.025 0		-0.350 0		-0.512 5	Ⅱ	D₃₃		-0.300 0		0.250 0		-0.125 0		-0.416 7	-0.562 5	Ⅱ
A₂₃	-0.300 0	0.250 0		-0.125 0		-0.416 7		-0.562 5	Ⅱ	D₃₄		-0.338 7		-0.023 8		0.050 0		-0.316 7	-0.487 5	Ⅲ
A₂₄	-0.300 0	0.250 0		-0.125 0		-0.416 7		-0.562 5	Ⅱ	D₄₁		-0.291 7		0.300 0		-0.150 0		-0.433 3	-0.575 0	Ⅱ
A₂₅	-0.325 2	0.070 0		-0.035 0		-0.356 7		-0.517 5	Ⅱ	D₄₂		-0.364 8		-0.129 6		0.350 0		-0.216 7	-0.412 5	Ⅲ
A₂₆	-0.338 7	-0.023 8		0.050 0		-0.316 7		-0.487 5	Ⅲ	D₄₃		-0.300 0		0.250 0		-0.125 0		-0.416 7	-0.562 5	Ⅱ
B₁₁	-0.282 6	0.350 0		-0.175 0		-0.450 0		-0.587 5	Ⅱ	E₁₁		-0.166 7		0.250 0		-0.375 0		-0.583 3	-0.687 5	Ⅱ
B₁₂	-0.312 0	0.170 0		-0.085 0		-0.390 0		-0.542 5	Ⅱ	E₁₂		-0.346 6		-0.058 3		0.130 0		-0.290 0	-0.467 5	Ⅲ
B₁₃	-0.300 0	0.250 0		-0.125 0		-0.416 7		-0.562 5	Ⅱ	E₁₃		-0.278 8		0.370 0		-0.185 0		-0.456 7	-0.592 5	Ⅱ
B₁₄	-0.352 9	-0.083 3		0.200 0		-0.266 7		-0.450 0	Ⅲ	E₁₄		-0.250 0		0.500 0		-0.250 0		-0.500 0	-0.625 0	Ⅱ
B₂₁	-0.307 7	0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0		-0.550 0	Ⅱ	E₁₅		-0.262 0		0.450 0		-0.225 0		-0.483 3	-0.612 5	Ⅱ
B₂₂	-0.314 8	0.150 0		-0.075 0		-0.383 3		-0.537 5	Ⅱ	E₁₆		-0.314 8		0.150 0		-0.075 0		-0.383 3	-0.537 5	Ⅱ
B₂₃	-0.307 7	0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0		-0.550 0	Ⅱ	E₂₁		-0.314 8		0.150 0		-0.075 0		-0.383 3	-0.537 5	Ⅱ
B₂₄	-0.300 0	0.250 0		-0.125 0		-0.416 7		-0.562 5	Ⅱ	E₂₂		-0.371 8		-0.155 2		0.450 0		-0.183 3	-0.387 5	Ⅲ
B₃₁	-0.282 6	0.350 0	-0.175 0		-0.450 0		-0.587 5		Ⅱ	E₂₃	-0.352 9		-0.083 3		0.200 0		-0.266 7		-0.450 0	Ⅲ
B₃₂	-0.327 6	0.050 0	-0.025 0		-0.350 0		-0.512 5		Ⅱ	E₂₄	-0.321 4		0.100 0		-0.050 0		-0.366 7		-0.525 0	Ⅱ
B₃₃	-0.327 6	0.050 0	-0.025 0		-0.350 0		-0.512 5		Ⅱ	F₁₁	-0.307 7		0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0		-0.550 0	Ⅱ
B₃₄	-0.307 7	0.200 0	-0.100 0		-0.400 0		-0.550 0		Ⅱ	F₁₂	-0.307 7		0.200 0		-0.100 0		-0.400 0		-0.550 0	Ⅱ
B₃₅	-0.307 7	0.200 0	-0.100 0		-0.400 0		-0.550 0		Ⅱ	F₂₁	-0.291 7		0.300 0		-0.150 0		-0.433 3		-0.575 0	Ⅱ
B₃₆	-0.282 6	0.350 0	-0.175 0		-0.450 0		-0.587 5		Ⅱ	F₂₂	-0.314 8		0.150 0		-0.075 0		-0.383 3		-0.537 5	Ⅱ

Tab.4

Fig.3

Tab.5

Cloud digital features of third-level indicators

三级指标	E_x	E_n	H_e
A₁₁	90.9	3.6346	0.8169
A₁₂	85.7	4.3114	1.2108
$︙$	$︙$	$︙$	$︙$
F₂₁	83.0	3.5093	0.3047
F₂₂	81.5	3.5093	0.9624

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.4

Fig.5

References 21

[1]	韩自强. 应急管理能力:多层次结构与发展路径[J]. 中国行政管理, 2020(3):137-142.
	HAN Ziqiang. A multi-level framework of developing emergency management capacities[J]. Chinese Public Administration, 2020(3):137-142.
[2]	邓云峰, 郑双忠, 刘功智, 等. 城市应急能力评估体系研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2005, 1(6):33-36.
	DENG Yunfeng, ZHENG Shuangzhong, LIU Gongzhi, et al. Study on city emergency capability assessment system[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology 2005, 1(6):33-36.
[3]	郑双忠, 邓云峰. 城市突发公共事件应急能力评估体系及其应用[J]. 辽宁工程技术大学学报:自然科学版, 2006, 25(6):943-946.
	ZHENG Shuangzhong, DENG Yunfeng. Capability assessment system for urban emergency incident readiness and its application[J]. Journal of Liaoning Technical University:Natural Science, 2006, 25(6):943-946.
[4]	邓芳, 刘吉夫. 玉树地震中政府的应急准备研究[J]. 北京师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2011, 47(5): 528-532.
	DENG Fang, LIU Jifu. Government emergency preparedness: analysis of response to the Yushu earthquake[J]. Journal of Beijing Normal University:Natural Science, 2011, 47(5): 528-532.
[5]	陈升, 孟庆国, 胡鞍钢. 政府应急能力及应急管理绩效实证研究:以汶川特大地震地方县市政府为例[J]. 中国软科学, 2010(2): 169-178.
	CHEN Sheng, MENG Qingguo, HU An'gang. Empirical study on government emergency management capacity and its performance:local government in Wenchuan earthquake[J]. China Soft Science, 2010(2): 169-178.
[6]	李湖生. 非常规突发事件应急准备体系的构成及其评估理论与方法研究[J]. 中国应急管理, 2013(8):13-21.
	LI Husheng. Research of composition of emergency preparedness system for unconventional emergencies and its evaluation theory and method[J]. China Emergency Management, 2013(8):13-21.
[7]	门永生, 朱朝阳, 于振, 等. 电网基础设施突发事件应急能力指标体系构建及评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2014, 14(3):84-87.
	MEN Yongsheng, ZHU Chaoyang, YU Zhen, et al. On the evaluation of the emergency response capability of the power grid infrastructure facing the unexpected accidents[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2014, 14(3):84-87.
[8]	程蕊. 乡镇基层政府应急准备现状及优化路径:基于福建省部分乡镇的实证分析[J]. 中共福建省委党校(福建行政学院)学报, 2020(1):113-119.
	CHENG Rui. The status of emergency preparedness for the township governments and its optimization path[J]. Journal of Fujian Provincial Committee Party School of CPC(Fujian Academy of Governance), 2020(1):113-119.
[9]	徐淑华, 陈建新, 祁慧. 基层网格化应急治理:主要问题及改进路径[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(1):8-17. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.01.002
	XU Shuhua, CHEN Jianxin, QI Hui. Grassroots grid emergency governmance:main challenges and improvement paths[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(1):8-17. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.01.002
[10]	吴晔欣. S市政府安全生产应急管理能力评价及提升对策研究[D]. 石家庄: 河北科技大学, 2021.
	WU Yexin. Study on evaluation and improvement of emergency management ability of safety production in S municipal government[D]. Shijiazhuang: Hebei University of Science & Technology, 2021.
[11]	TU Shiyu, HUANG Guangwei. Study of urban community emergency management in Huizhou, China[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2022, 973(1):DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/973/1/012015. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/973/1/012015
[12]	庄国波, 景步阳. 人工智能时代城市的“韧性”与应急管理[J]. 南京邮电大学学报:社会科学版, 2019, 21(4):20-30.
	ZHUANG Guobo, JING Buyang. Resilience and emergency management of cities in the artificial intelligence era[J]. Journal of Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications: Social Science Edition, 2019, 21(4): 20-30.
[13]	REGESTER M. Crisis management[M]. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1989: 99-109.
[14]	PIRAINA M, TRUCCO P. Emergency management capabilities of interdependent systems: framework for analysis[J]. Environment Systems and Decisions, 2022, 42(2): 149-176. doi: 10.1007/s10669-021-09840-0
[15]	BUKHOREE S, ANANT C. A proof-of-concept and feasibility analysis of using social sensors in the context of causal machine learning-based emergency management[J]. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 2022, 13(8): 3747-3763. doi: 10.1007/s12652-021-03317-3
[16]	AMAYE A, NEVILLE K, POPE A. BigPromises: using organisational mindfulness to integrate big data in emergency management decision making[J]. Journal of Decision Systems, 2016, 25(1):76-84. doi: 10.1080/12460125.2016.1187419
[17]	刘伟. 城市安全发展重点问题思考与对策[J]. 现代职业安全, 2022(6):73-75.
[18]	黄毅. 构建应急管理新格局之管见[J]. 中国应急管理科学, 2022(3):10-18.
	HUANG Yi. Views on constructing a new pattern of emergency management[J]. Journal of China Emergency Management Science, 2022(3):10-18.
[19]	朱相莉. 总体国家安全观指导下的新时代应急管理体系建设[J]. 新丝路, 2020(2):156-159.
[20]	裴兴旺, 李慧民, 李文龙, 等. 基于熵权物元可拓的桥梁检测作业危险性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(8):42-48. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.08.007
	PEI Xingwang, LI Huimin, LI Wenlong, et al. Risk assessment of bridge detection operation based on entropy weight and matter-element extension theory[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(8): 42-48. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.08.007
[21]	叶琼, 李绍隐, 张友华, 等. 云模型及应用综述[J]. 计算机工程与设计, 2011, 32(12):4198-4201.
	YE Qiong, LI Shaoyin, ZHANG Youhua, et al. Cloud model and application overview[J]. Computer Engineering and Design, 2011, 32(12): 4198-4201.

关联度K_j(C_i)	评价结果
0 < K_j(C_i) < 1	符合第j等级
-1 ≤ K_j(C_i) ≤ 0	不符合第j等级,但可以向其转化
K_j(C_i) < -1	不符合第j等级,且不可转化

指标	E_x	E_n	H_e
A	83.487 5	5.096 4	0.487 8
B	81.161 9	4.610 5	0.270 0
C	82.016 7	5.096 5	0.466 2
D	80.933 3	5.081 5	0.382 6
E	81.69	5.426 7	0.458 8
F	82.125	3.636 8	0.550 5
A₁	88.3	2.819 5	0.730 3
A₂	81.883 3	2.211 0	0.603 1
B₁	81.425	2.150 6	0.509 0
B₂	82	2.515 2	0.553 7
B₃	80.427 3	1.376 4	0.423 9
B₄	83	3.237 5	0.585 0
C₁	83.84	2.236 7	0.604 6
C₂	81.166 7	3.046 0	0.537 0
C₃	80.375	2.538 7	1.007 0
D₁	80.25	3.195 3	0.375 1
D₂	81.666 7	2.872 6	0.452 0
D₃	80.925	2.825 0	0.984 5
D₄	80.666 7	2.729 6	0.593 3
E₁	83.483 3	2.309 9	0.671 3
E₂	79	2.530 0	0.549 4
F₁	82	2.658 7	0.978 5
F₂	82.25	2.481 4	0.504 7