MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077883425 · doi:10.1002/prs.10253

Development of a process safety culture of chemical engineers

2008· article· en· W2077883425 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

VenueProcess Safety Progress · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess safetySafety cultureProcess (computing)Vulnerability (computing)Process safety managementEngineeringHazardRisk analysis (engineering)Key (lock)Work in processEngineering managementOperations managementBusinessComputer securityComputer scienceManagementHazardous wasteWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chemical engineers are frequently responsible for designing and operating process facilities. These facilities could cause major accidents with consequences on site and off site. Equilibrium has to be maintained between production pressure and safety requirements. This equilibrium can only be achieved if the people involved with the process plant develop and maintain a strong process safety culture. Lessons from the Challenger, Columbia, BP Texas City accidents, etc. indicate that there are five important key organization culture themes that need to be taken into account: Maintain sense of vulnerability Establish an imperative for safety Perform valid/timely hazard/risk assessments Ensure open and frank communications Learn and advance the culture This paper will describe how a chemical engineer can integrate these as a safety roadmap. © 2008 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2008

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.304 · 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