Major Accidents (Gray Swans) Likelihood Modeling Using Accident Precursors and Approximate Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to the remarkable progress in risk analysis of normal accidents, the risk analysis of major accidents has not been so well-established, partly due to the complexity of such accidents and partly due to low probabilities involved. The issue of low probabilities normally arises from the scarcity of major accidents' relevant data since such accidents are few and far between. In this work, knowing that major accidents are frequently preceded by accident precursors, a novel precursor-based methodology has been developed for likelihood modeling of major accidents in critical infrastructures based on a unique combination of accident precursor data, information theory, and approximate reasoning. For this purpose, we have introduced an innovative application of information analysis to identify the most informative near accident of a major accident. The observed data of the near accident were then used to establish predictive scenarios to foresee the occurrence of the major accident. We verified the methodology using offshore blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico, and then demonstrated its application to dam breaches in the United Sates.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".