MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093278656 · doi:10.1002/prs.11659

Loss functions and their applications in process safety assessment

2014· article· en· W2093278656 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability engineeringProcess (computing)Process safetySystem safetySafety instrumented systemSet (abstract data type)EngineeringQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceWarning systemWork in processRisk analysis (engineering)Operations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Process deviations, along with failure of control systems and protection layers, result in safety and quality loss in plant operations. This article proposes an operational risk‐based warning system design methodology based on overall system loss. Loss functions (LFs) are used to define the relationship between process deviations and system loss. For this purpose, properties associated with quadratic LF and a set of inverted probability LFs are investigated and compared. The results suggest that LFs can be used in a novel way to assess operational stability and system safety. The proposed consequence assessment methodology using LFs is then incorporated into a risk‐based warning system design model to analyze warnings associated with process deviations. A simulated case study is presented to demonstrate potential application of the proposed methodology; the study examines the response to a temperature surge for a reactor system. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 33: 285–291, 2014

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.343 · 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