Risk Management of Domino Effects Considering Dynamic Consequence Analysis
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
Domino effects are low-probability high-consequence accidents causing severe damage to humans, process plants, and the environment. Because domino effects affect large areas and are difficult to control, preventive safety measures have been given priority over mitigative measures. As a result, safety distances and safety inventories have been used as preventive safety measures to reduce the escalation probability of domino effects. However, these safety measures are usually designed considering static accident scenarios. In this study, we show that compared to a static worst-case accident analysis, a dynamic consequence analysis provides a more rational approach for risk assessment and management of domino effects. This study also presents the application of Bayesian networks and conflict analysis to risk-based allocation of chemical inventories to minimize the consequences and thus to reduce the escalation probability. It emphasizes the risk management of chemical inventories as an inherent safety measure, particularly in existing process plants where the applicability of other safety measures such as safety distances is limited.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 it