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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Faisal Khan, Paul Amyotte

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.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.050
Scholarly communication0.0170.022
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0150.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.051
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations182
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207