MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029210649 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22212

Dynamic Risk Assessment of a Nonlinear Non‐Gaussian System Using a Particle Filter and Detailed Consequence Analysis

2015· article· en· W2029210649 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
O. Zadakbar, Faisal Khan, Syed Imtiaz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParticle filterFault detection and isolationNonlinear systemProcess (computing)Computer scienceFilter (signal processing)Fault (geology)Sampling (signal processing)Reliability engineeringImportance samplingGaussianData miningControl theory (sociology)EngineeringMathematicsStatisticsMonte Carlo methodArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a dynamic risk assessment using a comprehensive economic consequence methodology in combination with a multivariate model‐based fault detection method. The proposed approach aims to calculate process risk dynamically at each sampling instant, and also to identify and screen the faults that are not hazardous. The approach relies on a particle filter combined with a comprehensive economic consequence methodology. The fault detection module uses a state space model of the process plant and a particle filter algorithm that calculates the probability of the fault. The output of this module is then combined with the consequence module, which uses loss functions to relate process deviations to economic losses. The consequence module identifies, quantifies, and integrates losses for a given scenario. Combining the two modules for risk assessment makes this approach more reliable in the analysis of realistic nonlinear process systems, and improves decision‐making for process design and risk management.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207