MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072627217 · doi:10.1115/omae2009-80084

Risk Assessment and Management Using Accident Precursors Modeling in Offshore Process Operation

2009· article· en· W2072627217 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Kalantarnia, Faisal Khan, Kelly Hawboldt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersHealth and Safety Executive
KeywordsProcess (computing)Event treeFault tree analysisRisk assessmentBayesian networkRisk managementProcess safetyEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceEvent tree analysisSubmarine pipelineAccident (philosophy)Identification (biology)Risk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringEngineeringWork in processOperations managementComputer securityMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offshore oil and gas operations are located in remote and often harsh marine environments. An offshore development can never be completely safe; however the degree of safety can be increased by selecting the optimum design, and developing proactive risk management strategies. This requires the identification and assessment of major risk contributors, which can be accomplished using quantitative risk assessment techniques. Dynamic failure assessment is a new approach in process safety management, which enables the real time failure analysis of a process. This approach uses Bayesian and joint probability theories to develop a predictive failure model for a given process. As a process proceeds and generates incidents and accident precursors, the accident occurrence probability is predicted. This paper presents a methodology based on the concept of dynamic failure assessment and its use in revising the risk profile for a process system based on accident precursor data modeling. An event tree is formed for a given abnormal event. Subsequently, using accident precursor data from the facility prior and posterior failure probabilities of events are calculated. A predictive model is developed using joint probability theory. Accident likelihood is combined with consequence analysis results to estimate posterior risk profile. Application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated on a process in an offshore process facility.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207