MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920567303 · doi:10.3233/oer-2012-0202

The impact of personal protective equipment and breathing apparatus on offshore lifeboat evacuation time

2012· article· en· W1920567303 on OpenAlex

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

VenueOccupational Ergonomics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbandonment (legal)UsabilityAeronauticsEngineeringSimulationTransport engineeringComputer scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A primary objective of this study was to determine if the 15 minutes of air contained in an emergency breathing apparatus afforded sufficient time to carry out an evacuation from an offshore installation in the event of an uncontrolled hydrogen sulfide (H2S) release. Twenty-four male and 12 female volunteers performed relevant evacuation skills during a simulated evacuation into a 36-person lifeboat. An observational analysis and subjective ratings of difficulty were used to determine potential ergonomic and safety issues. Results indicate that even under the worst-case scenario, all personnel would be able to safely evacuate to the lifeboat and abandon the installation given similar conditions used during this study. It was noted however, that ergonomic improvements to the design of the personal protective and safety equipment could improve usability, thus decrease abandonment times.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.292 · 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