MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049789617 · doi:10.1002/prs.11737

<scp>L</scp>ac‐<scp>M</scp>égantic accident: What we learned

2015· article· en· W2049789617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.P. Lacoursière, Paul‐André Dastous, Stéphanie Lacoursière

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety Progress · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteEngineeringTransport engineeringBusinessAviationWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tragic train derailment in Lac‐Megantic, a small Quebec community caused 47 fatalities, the destruction of part of the town and huge cleaning costs. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has conducted an in‐depth investigation of the causes of Lac‐Mégantic accident and has formulated recommendations. The catastrophic consequences of the Lac‐Mégantic accident and the known increase over the last several years in rail transportation of Class 3 hazardous materials has made it clear, the need to review the existing regulations and industry practices to such transportation. Canada Transport Safety Board, U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, Transport Canada, U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, and U.S. Federal Railroad Administration are working closely to upgrade rail transport regulations to prevent similar incidents from occurring. The tragedy in Lac‐Mégantic was not caused by one single person, action, or organization. Many factors played a role, and addressing the safety issues will take a concerted effort from regulators, railways, the Association of American Railroads, shippers, tank car manufacturers, and refiners in Canada and the United States. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 34: 2–15, 2015

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcess Safety ProgressSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207