MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992810850 · doi:10.1177/154193120004401803

HF Verification and Validation Activities: Simulator Based Operational Trials

2000· article· en· W1992810850 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeannie Malcolm, Kim Holford, Debbie Gillard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsOntario Power GenerationAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShutdownOperabilityMaintainabilitySystems engineeringVerification and validationReliability engineeringNuclear powerNuclear power plantPlan (archaeology)EngineeringComputer scienceOperations managementNuclear engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes to shutdown system (SDS) software were made at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. This is a four unit CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium) nuclear power station located on the north shore of Lake Ontario (each unit is approximately 900 MW). These changes were initiated through an agreement with the Canadian nuclear regulator to improve the maintainability of the safety critical software. In addition, a number of functional changes were made, based on operational experience, to improve the operability and maintainability of the shutdown systems as a whole. The integration of Human Factors Engineering (HFE) into the systems design process was achieved using a Human Factors Engineering Program Plan (see Beattie and Malcolm, 1991 for a discussion of this type of planning document). The HFE program steps were taken from NUREG 0711 - Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model (U.S. NRC, 1994). The program plan included formal HFE Verification and Validation, culminating with operational trials in the full-scale control room training simulator. Results indicated that all functional changes passed on all performance criteria, and that the measures showed a high degree of convergent validity.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207