MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000227070 · doi:10.13031/2013.19718

Using Fault Tree Analysis to Identify Contributing Factors to Engulfment in Flowing Grain in On-Farm Grain Bins

2005· article· en· W2000227070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas M. Kingman, W. E. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Safety and Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPurdue University
KeywordsFault tree analysisHazardBinForensic engineeringPerspective (graphical)Intervention (counseling)EngineeringAgricultureEnvironmental healthAgricultural engineeringBusinessGeographyMathematicsPsychologyMedicineReliability engineeringBiologyEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Findings reported by researchers at Illinois State University and Purdue University indicated that since 1980, an average of eight individuals per year have become engulfed and died in farm grain bins in the U.S. and Canada and that all these deaths are significant because they are believed to be preventable. During a recent effort to develop intervention strategies and recommendations for an ASAE farm grain bin safety standard, fault tree analysis (FTA) was utilized to identify contributing factors to engulfments in grain stored in on-farm grain bins. FTA diagrams provided a spatial perspective of the circumstances that occurred prior to engulfment incidents, a perspective never before presented in other hazard analyses. The FTA also demonstrated relationships and interrelationships of the contributing factors. FTA is a useful tool that should be applied more often in agricultural incident investigations to assist in the more complete understanding of the problem studied.

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)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Safety and HealthSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207