MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000707938 · doi:10.5555/2662398.2662400

Safety cases: a review of challenges

2013· review· en· W2000707938 on OpenAlexaff
Zarrin Langari, Tom Maibaum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilitySafety caseSafety assuranceRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringMedicineProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we address safety cases as special cases of the more general class of assurance cases, which were developed as an extension to the concept of safety case. Related to the development and use of safety cases, there remain challenges, such as their size, readability, and identifying fallacious reasoning used in arguments. Some of these challenges are reviewed in the current article and followed by a review of challenges for the assessment of safety cases by regulators.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSafety Systems Engineering in AutonomyFrench-language works237,207