MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973689158 · doi:10.1002/prs.10032

An inherent safety–based incident investigation methodology

2004· article· en· W1973689158 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Attiq U. Goraya, Paul Amyotte, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety Progress · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProcess safetyBankruptcyEngineeringRealmProcess safety managementCoal miningProcess (computing)Forensic engineeringNova scotiaRisk analysis (engineering)Near missCoalOperations managementWork in processComputer scienceBusinessWaste managementHazardous wastePolitical scienceLawGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A methodology has been developed to enable the explicit use of the principles of inherent safety in an incident investigation protocol. The usefulness of this approach is demonstrated by application to the Westray coal mine explosion that occurred in Nova Scotia in 1992. This process‐related disaster resulted in the deaths of 26 workers, destruction of the underground workings, and bankruptcy of the parent company. The purpose in presenting this case study is twofold: to validate the methodology and to identify the inherent safety considerations that could have prevented the incident. These findings have application beyond the realm of coal mining, extending well into the world of the chemical process industries. © 2004 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 23:197–205, 2004

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcess Safety ProgressSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207