Modelling and Simulating of Risk Behaviours in Virtual Environments Based on Multi-Agent and Fuzzy Logic
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
Due to safety and ethical issues, traditional experimental approaches to modelling underground risk behaviours can be costly, dangerous and even impossible to realize. Based on multi-agent technology, a virtual coalmine platform for risk behaviour simulation is presented to model and simulate the human-machine-environment related risk factors in underground coalmines. To reveal mine workers' risk behaviours, a fuzzy emotional behaviour model is proposed to simulate underground miners' responding behaviours to potential hazardous events based on cognitive appraisal theories and fuzzy logic techniques. The proposed emotion model can generate more believable behaviours for virtual miners according to personalized emotion states, internal motivation needs and behaviour selection thresholds. Finally, typical accident cases of underground hazard spotting and locomotive transport were implemented. The behaviour believability of virtual miners was evaluated with a user assessment method. Experimental results show that the proposed models can create more realistic and reasonable behaviours in virtual coalmine environments, which can improve miners' risk awareness and further train miners' emergent decision-making ability when facing unexpected underground situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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