MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040432319 · doi:10.1002/prs.11589

Management of change—enabler or inhibitor?

2013· article· en· W2040432319 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetrel Robertson Consulting (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnablingProcess (computing)Principal (computer security)Process managementWork (physics)Risk analysis (engineering)Process safety managementBusinessKnowledge managementEngineeringComputer scienceComputer securityPsychologyHazardous waste

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of change (MOC) is one of the more fundamental elements of process safety management (PSM) and one which is common to all PSM frameworks. It is also an activity that breeds frustration and difficulty in many organizations, and this may impede its effectiveness. To address, this concern it is necessary to fully understand the purpose and benefits of MOC, and the efforts required to make it work. This article highlights some of the principal barriers to an effective MOC initiative and suggests ways to streamline it so that it provides optimum benefit. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2013

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.396
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