MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032553574 · doi:10.1080/23311916.2015.1030829

QNP_SHELL: A computerized tool for improving decision-making skills for nuclear power plant operators

2015· article· en· W2032553574 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

VenueCogent Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Nuclear power plantOperator (biology)Expert systemNuclear powerShell (structure)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringSystems engineeringBusinessMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision-making in complex systems such as nuclear power plants (NPPs) is a difficult task at best. The safety and integrity of many such high-capital cost-intensive installations depend on the operator’s capability to correctly diagnose and take appropriate measures to avoid any abnormal operations of an NPP. Therefore, the role of the expert systems in the offline training programs for the operators is ever increasing. In this paper, we describe the development of an expert system, “QNP_SHELL,” to assist, offline QNPP operators and plant personnel in a better familiarization to infer the anticipated and foreseen malfunctions from the observed symptoms. QNP_SHELL’s inferencing mechanism is of the “Rule-based” type and to search the knowledge base it adopts the “Depth First” technique. The diagnostic performance of the trainee operators using QNP_SHELL on various accidents at QNPP has been found, through both the qualitative and quantitative evaluations, satisfactory.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.276 · 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