Avoiding Confirmation Bias in a Safety Management System (SMS)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Confidence in a safety management system (SMS) could be undermined by a tendency to search for, interpret, choose, or recall information in a way that supports a favorable view of how safety risk is managed in an organization. This tendency, sometimes called "confirmation bias", might be unintentional. Otherwise, it might be the result of a misguided loyalty to an organization, a reluctance to "open a can of worms" or even an intention to mislead or deceive. A temptation to rely on Generative AI as a substitute for critical thinking in the development and maintenance of a SMS might also be a source of confirmation bias. This paper proposes the use of Eliminative Argumentation (EA) to avoid confirmation bias in a SMS. Our approach is an adaptation of an innovative method for safety assurance developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. At the heart of the method, confidence can be increased by identifying potential doubts, and then eliminating these doubts where it is reasonable to do so. A hierarchically structured argument for confidence in the SMS can be explicitly documented using a simple notation that mirrors the structure of the SMS. Following the structure described in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 8000.369C, the main branches of this argument cover the four components of a SMS, namely the Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management (SRM), Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion. In turn, each of these main branches are further split into subbranches. For example, one of the sub-branches of the SMR branch of the argument addresses the need to track identified hazards and monitor implemented safety risk controls/ mitigations to ensure that they achieve their intended safety performance targets. To this level, the argument is an instance of a template that can be re-used for other instances of a SMS based on FAA Order 8000.369C. Lower levels of this tree-shaped argument are tailored to the specific details of how the SMS is implemented and maintained. For example, there might be doubts, also known as "defeaters", in the argument at this level that challenge the process used by the organization to decide that particular hazards are adequately controlled. Such defeaters are often expressed in the form of "What if ...?" questions. For example, "what if a decision that an identified hazard is mitigated is made by an unqualified person?". Such defeaters are often eliminated by supplementary details - for example, details about the minimum qualifications of personnel in a particular role. Using appropriate tool support, the structured argument for confidence in the SMS can be linked to Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to measure the effectiveness of the SMS. For example, one such KPI measures how many days on average it takes to analyze and resolve safety issues raised by personnel. If and when this measured value exceeds a defined threshold, it will be flagged as a problem for the SMS. Among other influences on a SMS, this paper will also take account of the impact of relying on Generative AI. In summary, the first contribution of this paper is showing how trust in a SMS can be increased by means of Eliminative Argumentation, especially as a means of avoiding confirmation bias. The second contribution of this paper is showing how KPIs can be used to further increase confidence in a SMS.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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