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 OpenAlexaff
O. Zadakbar, Syed Imtiaz, Faisal Khan

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations81
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207