MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048710977 · doi:10.1109/ispce.2013.6664171

The relative impact of control reliability on machinery risk

2013· article· en· W2048710977 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Douglas S. G. Nix

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorkers Compensation Board of Manitoba
KeywordsReliability engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability (semiconductor)SafeguardingControl (management)Risk assessmentHazardLegislationEngineeringSystem safetyComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Process (computing)Control systemRisk managementComputer securityBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Control of risks related to machinery is central to current product and occupational health and safety legislation in North America and the European Union. Understanding these risks requires risk assessment, and this process is represented in all leading standards in these jurisdictions. Standards provide machine designers with a hierarchy of controls that can effectively control these risks when appropriately applied, including the application of engineering controls as the second stage in the hierarchy. In the second stage, safeguarding systems that involve the control system of the machinery to alter the characteristics of the hazard or the probability of exposure to the hazard have become central in the large majority of machinery designs. Reliability of these control systems is one critical element in the application of these systems. This paper explores the impact of control reliability on overall risk control for machinery, and shows the cost of analysis and design of safety-related control systems may be greater than the benefits of the risk reduction achieved.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207