MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039634451 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2001-1-363

Tabletop Exercises-Preparing Through Play

2001· article· en· W2039634451 on OpenAlex
Laura Patrick, Cliff Barber

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational airportEmergency responseTransport engineeringDisaster responseAeronauticsAviationEmergency managementEnvironmental scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningEngineeringPolitical scienceMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Vancouver International Airport (the Airport) is Canada's second busiest airport, handling approximately 16 million passengers, 370,000 aircraft movements. and 1.5 billion liters (400 million gallons) of aviation fuel annually. The Airport is located on an island in the estuary of the Fraser River, a major migration corridor for salmon. The Fraser River estuary is on the Pacific Flyway. Twice in the past 20 years, a major fuel spill on the Airport has reached the Fraser River. The Vancouver International Airport Authority's (Airport Authority) Environmental Emergency Response Program places a dual emphasis on prevention and emergency response. Key objectives include:Fostering cooperation among tenants, response agencies, and the Airport AuthorityEnsuring a quick, safe, and effective response to spillsReducing the severity and frequency of spills One of the program tools used, and the subject of this paper, is a tabletop exercise. A tabletop exercise brings together various response organizations in an environment where a scripted scenario can be worked from the comfort of a meeting room. The Airport Authority has used tabletop exercises for the past 8 years to practice various emergency scenarios that can occur at an airport (e.g., plane crashes, bomb threats, and hazardous material incidents). The frequency of exercises is planned. The specific scenario to be exercised purposely is not identified too far in advance, allowing for a timely response to actual incidents or near incidents. For example, a tenant had a major fuel spill involving a mobile refueler. The incident response was well managed, with the tenant undertaking responsibility for the long-term site remediation. However, other fueling tenants were not sure they were as well prepared. Therefore, the next tabletop exercise was tailored to allow all fuel-handling tenants, including government agencies and Airport Authority response management to take part in an event mimicking the actual spill, thus adding an element of reality and urgency to the tabletop exercise. Participants appreciate the opportunity to participate in the tabletop exercises. They come away with a solid understanding of their responsibilities and what resources they would bring to a real incident. Most of all, it is an opportunity for the individuals who have taken part in an actual incident to share their experience. While there continues to be more effort on preventing hazardous material spills, well-scripted and facilitated tabletop exercises are excellent tools for preparing for the real thing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.371
Teacher spread0.278 · 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