MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4399171646 · doi:10.18260/1-2--46057

Sacrificing Safety in the Name of Innovation: the OceanGate Titan Disaster

2024· article· en· W4399171646 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Marchant, Danny Marchant

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueSpace exploration and regulation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTitan (rocket family)AstrobiologyComputer scienceComputer securityBusinessPhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract In 2023, the OceanGate Titan submersible embarked on a mission to visit the Titanic, ending in a catastrophic implosion and the loss of all five souls on board. Despite successful missions descending to the Titanic before, OceanGate and founder Stockton Rush repeatedly ignored warnings, had an insufficient pressure depth testing plan, oversimplified the submersible's design, and sacrificed safety in the name of innovation. Design choices such as a carbon fiber hull and oversimplified controls were chosen and made the company appear to be on the cutting edge of new maritime technology. However, these critical choices would end up being detrimental to the Titan's final voyage. While accident reports remain ongoing, early reports have shown that the most likely outcome of the Titan was the cracking of its hull, which had previously experienced problems and had not undergone a rigorous amount of testing, as should be required for an ocean floor expedition submarine. Final accident reports will likely further characterize how the lack of proper equipment and testing had decreased the Titan's chance of success. Regardless of the true catastrophic failure the Titan experienced, the company's ambitions to conquer the frontier of deep-sea exploration resulted in poor ethical standards. The Titan also serves as a modern parallel to the ship it was intent on exploring; the Titanic notoriously sank due to an iceberg, as the ship had been poorly tested in rough conditions. In the growing age of extreme adventures, OceanGate's lack of proper testing and overconfidence in its engineering resulted in a culture that was socially responsive to meet demand but lacking in social responsibility. Ethical standards must be established and enforced for start-ups who push the envelope in extreme environments to foster a spirit that emphasizes discovery while prioritizing safety. Additionally, countries must collaborate to ensure basic, proper regulations can be enforced in international spaces, such as the mid-Atlantic, to prevent more disasters at sea. The OceanGate disaster can be used as a valuable lesson to educate the future leaders of engineering. Cultural vitality and social responsiveness must come from the design of the technology itself rather than the dreams and ideas of one person. This shift encourages a collaborative engineering community during design and development to provide a diverse range of perspectives. Emerging leaders in technology must serve as role models for those who endeavor new technology and must demonstrate responsible and ethical engineering while still striving for innovation. Additionally, sound engineering choices benefit society as a whole. Had OceanGate not sunk, the American and Canadian coast guards would not have spent millions attempting to locate the submarine on the ocean floor. Another key influence the Titan sinking has had is the new perception of danger among the public about deep sea exploration, which has generally changed the public opinion to become opposed to important private company missions that could serve as a great benefit to science in the future. By learning from the OceanGate disaster, future society can benefit by producing and maintaining an ethical, educational, and inventive exploration industry, both at sea and beyond.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,862
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,415

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,268
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetSpace exploration and regulationTravaux en français237 207