MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1741995808 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5864

A MODULE FOR TEACHING RISK MANAGEMENT

2015· article· en· W1741995808 on OpenAlexaffvenue
K. Godri-Politt, Graeme W. Norval

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical Safety and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERHazardous wasteHazardRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementReputationHazard analysisIdentification (biology)Process (computing)HarmProperty (philosophy)Computer scienceEvent (particle physics)EngineeringReliability engineeringComputer securityBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The key to a successful engineering project isthe early identification of hazards, followed by designingthe process in such a way as to remove the hazard, or todevelop means to mitigate the risk. A Hazard is aninherent property of a substance or device which cancause harm to people, property, the environment, or to abusiness (loss of reputation). Any one hazard can cause aloss through a number of hazardous events. Each eventhas a specific loss quantity and frequency. Risk is theproduct of the consequence and the frequency/probabilityof the hazardous event.A learning module, that introduces the concepts of hazardand risk, has been developed, which is targeted at upperyear engineering students. The module has examplesfrom various disciplines and leads through the conceptsof hazard identification and hazard reduction. Riskquantification is introduced, as are several techniques forrisk quantification. Finally, the management of risk,including the management of residual riskThe module was provided to a class of 3rd year chemicalengineering students, to supplement an existing course inwhich inherently safer design techniques are taughtthrough use of case studies and a design project. Studentfeedback will be presented. The module will be availablefor use in fall of 2014.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicChemical Safety and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207