1.8.4 Probabilistic Risk/Reliability Analysis (PRA) Using a Simulation Approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Probabilistic risk/reliability (PRA) analyses for engineered systems are conventionally based on fault‐tree methods. These methods are mature and efficient, and are well suited to systems consisting of interacting components with known, low probabilities of failure. Even complex systems, such as nuclear power plants or aircraft, are modeled by the careful application of these approaches. However, for systems that may evolve in complex and nonlinear ways, and where the performance of components may be a sensitive function of the history of their working environments, fault‐tree methods can be very demanding. This paper proposes an alternative method of evaluating such systems, based on probabilistic time‐based simulation using intelligent software objects to represent the components of such systems. Using a Monte Carlo approach, simulation models can be constructed from relatively simple interacting objects that capture the essential behavior of the components that they represent. Such models are capable of reflecting the complex behaviors of the systems that they represent in a natural and realistic way.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it