MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are classical process safety concepts relevant to nanotechnology applications?

2011· article· en· W2050605313 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

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical Safety and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERProcess (computing)Process safetyRisk analysis (engineering)Safety cultureAdaptation (eye)NanotechnologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringComputer scienceWork in processMedicinePsychologyOperations managementMaterials scienceManagementComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The answer to the question posed by the title of this paper is yes – with adaptation to the specific hazards and challenges found in the field of nanotechnology. The validity of this affirmative response is demonstrated by relating key process safety concepts to various aspects of the nanotechnology industry in which these concepts are either already practised or could be further applied. This is accomplished by drawing on the current author's experience in process safety practice and education as well as a review of the relevant literature on the safety of nanomaterials and their production. The process safety concepts selected for analysis include: (i) risk management, (ii) inherently safer design, (iii) human error and human factors, (iv) safety management systems, and (v) safety culture.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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