MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027448539 · doi:10.1002/prs.10494

Why process safety programs sometimes fail

2011· article· en· W2027448539 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety Progress · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetrel Robertson Consulting (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess safety managementProcess safetyAuditRisk analysis (engineering)Process (computing)Principal (computer security)TRACE (psycholinguistics)BusinessProcess managementOperations managementComputer scienceComputer securityEngineeringWork in processAccountingHazardous waste

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Process safety management (PSM) failures are common across industry. Many of these failures trace their roots back to lack of understanding and support by senior management. Inadequate resources, improper metrics and unrealistic expectations are some of the reasons for such failures. Formal audits often fail to disclose the reasons why PSM may not provide its full intended benefits. This article discusses some of the principal reasons for process safety shortcomings. © 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2011

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.271 · 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