MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995988563 · doi:10.2118/108887-ms

Development of Site Entry Protocol for HNS Spill Response

2007· article· en· W1995988563 on OpenAlexaff
Celina Koh, Fook-Ann George Tan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteProtocol (science)Environmental scienceEmergency responsePreparednessOil spillComputer scienceWaste managementEngineeringEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Anticipating the entry into force of the OPRC-HNS Protocol (Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to pollution incidents by Hazardous Noxious Substances) in June 2007, Oil Spill Response & East Asia Response Limited (OSRL/EARL) initiated a HNS study (focusing mainly on petrochemical floaters), exploring the issues involved in providing an effective HNS spill response. This paper aims to discuss the development of a novel site entry protocol for responders. Health and safety of personnel is always of the utmost priority during a spill response. Due to the vast range of chemicals and their associated behaviours, numerous considerations have to be taken into account, especially when more than one substance is involved: Some chemicals can react with each other or with sea water, creating a more hazardous environment (fire, explosion, toxic fumes, etc) and the behaviour of the numerous products transported by sea can greatly differ when they are spilled into the marine environment. It is therefore essential to make an appropriate assessment, having integrated safety protocols and well trained response teams before proceeding to the site of the incident. In addressing the safety aspect of a HNS response, OSRL/EARL has developed a site entry protocol based on the "Controlling Compound" methodology. The approach of this protocol is to set all gas monitoring devices based on the most hazardous compound when there is a mixture of chemicals spilled. The rationale for this is that the identity of the vapours in the air following a "cocktail" spill is often unknown. Even if they are known, the composition ratio of the gas mixture is definitely not constant in an open environment. As a result, the conventional method of setting alarms in a Photo-Ionisation Detector (PID) is not applicable. This method is not widely practiced and this paper proposes to explain the approach, advantages and limitations of this protocol for responding to HNS spills.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.027

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207