MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

6.4.3 Risk Informed Design for System Life Cycle

2003· article· en· W1965873940 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

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic risk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Probabilistic logicNuclear powerReliability engineeringNuclear power plantRisk assessmentReliability (semiconductor)Component (thermodynamics)Computer scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringPower (physics)Computer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many facilty life cycle activities including design, construction, fabrication, inspection and maintenance are evolving from a deterministic to a risk‐informed basis. The risk informed approach uses probabilistic methods to evaluate the contribution of individual system components to total system performance. Total system performance considers both safety and cost considerations including system failure, reliability, and availability. By necessity, a risk‐informed approach considers both the component's life cycle and the life cycle of the system. In the nuclear industry, risk‐based approaches, namely probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) or probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), have become a standard tool used to evaluate the safety of nuclear power plants. Recent studies pertaining to advanced reactor development have indicated that these new power plants must provide improved safety over existing nuclear facilities and be cost‐competitive with other energy sources. Risk‐based approaches, beyond traditional PRA, offer the opportunity to optimize design while considering the total life cycle of the plant in order to realize these goals. The use of risk‐based design approaches in the nuclear industry is only beginning, with recent promulgation of risk‐informed regulations and proposals for risk‐based codes. This paper briefly summarizes the current state of affairs regarding the use of risk‐based approaches in design. Key points to fully realize the benefit of applying a risk‐based approach to nuclear power plant design are then presented and illustrated in a case study. These points are equally applicable to non‐nuclear facilities where optimization for cost competitiveness and/or safety is desired.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.265 · 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