MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966782165 · doi:10.1021/ie202880w

Dynamic Risk Assessment and Fault Detection Using Principal Component Analysis

2012· article· en· W1966782165 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

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePrincipal component analysisReliability engineeringFault detection and isolationFault (geology)Process (computing)Component (thermodynamics)Risk analysis (engineering)Warning systemRisk assessmentData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A methodology to calculate process risk in combination with a data based fault detection method is proposed in this paper. The proposed approach aims to identify and screen the faults which are not safety concerns and also to dynamically update process risk at each sampling instant. The approach is built upon principal component analysis (PCA) combined with a quantitative operational risk assessment model. Through this approach, a warning system is activated only when the risk of operation exceeds the acceptable threshold. Combining PCA with the risk assessment model makes this approach more robust against false alarms. Application of this new risk based approach provides early warnings and early activation of safety systems prior to the fault impacting the system. This method has more power in discerning between operational deviations and abnormal conditions which potentially may cause an unwanted situation (an accident).

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.342
Teacher spread0.288 · 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