MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fuzzy‐Logic‐Based Safety Verification Framework for Nuclear Power Plants

2012· article· en· W1520388411 on OpenAlexafffund
Achint Rastogi, Hossam A. Gabbar

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFuzzy logicReliability engineeringHazardSystem safetyNuclear power plantHazard analysisProcess (computing)Computer scienceEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Data miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a practical implementation of a safety verification framework for nuclear power plants (NPPs) based on fuzzy logic where hazard scenarios are identified in view of safety and control limits in different plant process values. Risk is estimated quantitatively and compared with safety limits in real time so that safety verification can be achieved. Fuzzy logic is used to define safety rules that map hazard condition with required safety protection in view of risk estimate. Case studies are analyzed from NPP to realize the proposed real-time safety verification framework. An automated system is developed to demonstrate the safety limit for different hazard scenarios.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207