MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2274632997 · doi:10.2172/814292

DOE Safety Metrics Indicator Program (SMIP) Third Quarter FY 2001 Quarterly Report

2001· report· en· W2274632997 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
L.S. Dickerson

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typereport
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueRisk and Safety Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHazardous wasteQuarter (Canadian coin)DatabaseTransport engineeringForensic engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceWaste managementGeographyArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Safety Metrics Indicator Program (SMIP) retrieved 69 packaging- or transportation-related occurrences from the Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) during the period from April 1 through June 30, 2001. Only those incidents that occur in preparation for transport, during transport, and during unloading of hazardous material are considered as packaging- or transportation-related occurrences. Other incidents with packaging and transportation (P and T) significance but not involving hazardous material (such as vehicle accidents or empty packagings) are not rated to the SMIP criteria, but are archived in the SMIP Subsidiary Database of occurrences, a sub-database of the main SMIP P and T Occurrence Database. Fifty-one of the originally-selected 69 occurrences were appropriate for classification to the SMIP criteria, 26 of which have offsite applicability. Eight of the original 69 reports are archived in a subsidiary database because they either do not involve the transport of hazardous material or they do not involve transport by vehicle, plane, boat, or rail. The others were either deleted because more thorough review revealed that they were not strictly related to P and T or they were canceled by the reporting site and removed from the ORPS. The number and severity of the selected occurrence reports (ORs) are similar with historical reporting. No adverse trends were pronounced. However, when the number of ORs obtained during the third quarter are combined with those obtained during the first and second quarters, it appears that there may be a slight increase over the 150 P and T-related ORs that are typically retrieved from the ORPS annually. On the other hand, the severity of the ORs continues to be non-alarming. None of the 51 ORs that were rated had event consequence measures (WEC) greater than 2, 31 of which were categorized as having a WEC of 1. This means that all of the third quarter fiscal year (FY) 2001 ORs had only slight consequences at worst (i.e., resulting in minimal safety consequences with little potential for ultimately leading to suspected endangerment of people or environmental contamination). Because the event consequence measure is low, the overall hazard significance ratings (HSRs) are relatively low, indicating that the actual risks posed by the occurrences are not highly threatening. In fact, even the 1 reported emergency OR and the 3 unusual ORs had HSRs of 20 or less. The ORs are summarized in the appendix and listed along with their HSR and stakeholder interest [currently termed the stakeholder and publicity rating (SPR)]. This enables one to get a feel of how the nature of an occurrence and its P and T significance translates into a severity rating. The information provided in this third quarter report has not been normalized as in the Annual Report of Occurrences because the necessary information is not yet available. Once the majority of the functions of the Enterprise Transportation Analysis System (ETAS) are integrated into the Automated Transportation Management System (ATMS) and the ATMS is subsequently updated and improved, information should be readily available from ATMS, which will provide a basis for speedily normalizing occurrence data. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Transportation Program Albuquerque (NTPA) is currently working toward this goal.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,120
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,238

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0060,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,105
Tête enseignante GPT0,419
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetRisk and Safety AnalysisTravaux en français237 207