MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1210291482 · doi:10.1252/jcej.14we298

BBN-Based Reasoning Approach for Safety Verification Using FSN

2015· article· en· W1210291482 on OpenAlex
Hossam A. Gabbar, Manir U. Isham, Sajid Hussain, Luping Zhang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING OF JAPAN · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)HazardComputer scienceReliability engineeringProcess safetyFault (geology)Hazard analysisVariable (mathematics)Data miningWork in processEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In process industry, there are uncertainties associated with each variable, which might lead to process deviations and hazards. In order to accurately quantify the risks associated with these hazard scenarios, quantitative probability should be calculated. The process dynamically changes during plant operation, which requires continuous monitoring of process risks and real-time safety verification. It is challenging to both dynamically and instantaneously estimate the risks for all faults and deviations. An FSN is introduced in this paper to systematically and continuously estimate risks for all possible fault propagation scenarios. Intelligent reasoning algorithms are proposed using a BBN to accurately estimate risks. An FSN is used to analyze causes and consequences of different faults using automated forward and backward propagation learning techniques. Real-time safety verification is applied to each fault propagation scenario. The TE process is used to illustrate the proposed real-time safety verification.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it