MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140778207 · doi:10.1002/prs.11557

The <scp>PSV</scp> That Did Not Fail—Misconceptions About <scp>PSVs</scp>

2013· article· en· W2140778207 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuelle Hagey

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety Progress · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafety valveProcess (computing)Event (particle physics)EngineeringRelief valveProcess safetyHigh pressureForensic engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementComputer securityConstruction engineeringComputer scienceWork in processMechanical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressure relief devices generally represent the last line of defense for a pressure vessel in a chemical plant during abnormal situations. The article title comes from the numerous times the author heard that “a pressure safety device had failed” when the person making this statement was in essence thinking that “the pressure safety device had opened.” The use of the term “failure” conveys the impression that something was wrong about this safety device, when in fact it had done exactly what it was supposed to do. And although the consequences of the device activation may cause an undesirable event such as plant shutdown, it is not a relief system failure. Some misconceptions are so widely spread among plant engineers that it is very hard (especially for young engineers) to challenge and deviate from that common “knowledge.” It is not the goal of this article to provide in‐depth design considerations for pressure safety devices. The objective of this article is to present some key points that “every plant engineer should know” about the pressure safety valve lifecycle, from design to installation and maintenance. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 32: 84–89, 2013

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcess Safety ProgressSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207