Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Western Canada, a significant portion of fatalities in the oil field can be related to driving events. A major service company has implemented a multifaceted approach to addressing the hazards associated with driving in the oilfield. A key component of the driving program is the driving simulator. In 2001, this service company purchased its first mobile computerized driving simulators to complement its driving program in the United States. The service company worked with the simulator manufacturer to develop a custom oilfield-specific driving program. The program evolved to include a multitude of scenarios and hazards that drivers are exposed to in field operations. Implementation of these simulators helped to account for a 50% reduction in automobile incidents and a 70% reduction in high-potential automotive incidents. The operations for this service company in Canada took notice and utilized a driving simulator as part of a pre-winter campaign in the fourth quarter of 2003. During Q1 of 2004, Canadian operations realized the lowest crash rate in its history. In 2007, the next generation of driving simulator was purchased for dedicated use in this region. New features include the ability to link student driver stations to simulate convoys, the ability of the instructor to interact independently with either or both students, and an enhanced scenario tool box to allow the instructor to craft custom scenarios. This paper describes evolution in the use of a simulator for driver training in an oilfield environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".