MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013390147 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450810101

How to Make Inherent Safety Practice a Reality

2003· article· en· W2013390147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERRisk analysis (engineering)Process (computing)Inherent safetyComputer scienceProcess managementEngineering ethicsManagement scienceEngineeringBusinessComputer securityReliability engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years there has been an increased effort to develop inherently safer chemical processes, focusing on changing the process to eliminate hazards, rather than accepting the hazards and developing add‐on features to control them. This paper discusses design approaches to inherently safer processing, including examples of inherent safety principles. The paper also presents a state‐of‐the‐art review of the initiatives taken by various groups and agencies worldwide to promote inherent safety, and the tools developed to measure inherent safety for chemical processes. The discussion concludes with thoughts on why inherent safety is not yet a routine practice for accomplishing risk reduction, and suggestions for ways to make it routine (with reference to a brief case study).

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.

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)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.253 · 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