MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065623695 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20064

Risk based decision‐making in plant design

2008· article· en· W2065623695 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norberto Piccinini, Micaela Demichela

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperabilityFault tree analysisRisk analysis (engineering)Simple (philosophy)Identification (biology)Computer scienceAccident (philosophy)Reliability engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accidental events that have occurred in chemical and nuclear plants show that the application of technical regulations on its own, even when extremely detailed, does not assure that adequate safety levels are reached and, above all, maintained in time. The paper illustrates, with a simple example, how a risk analysis can be considered as an essential tool for a correct plant design, above all when dealing with major risk installations. In particular the use of the Recursive Operability Analysis is shown, in the phase of accident identification, since it allows to directly draw the logic trees, both Fault and Event Trees for the quantification phase, thus assuring the congruence of the whole analysis.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207