MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158310369 · doi:10.1177/1748006x12466371

Quantitative modeling of organizational resilience for Dutch emergency response safety regions

2012· article· en· W2158310369 on OpenAlexaff
J.M.P. van Trijp, Mihaela Ulieru, Pieter van Gelder

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Emergency responseProcess (computing)Scale (ratio)Emergency managementRisk analysis (engineering)Quality (philosophy)Process managementComputer scienceBusinessGeographyPolitical scienceMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilience is an important concept to determine how well a Dutch Emergency Response Safety Region behaves under stress. The main objective of this study is to determine the intrinsic value of “resilience” for Dutch Emergency Response Safety Regions. In this study it is concluded that the concept of “resilience” can be best described by the generic approach “operational resilience”. A large scale survey among safety stakeholders in The Netherlands was conducted where the following items describing operational resilience were explored: situation awareness ( awa); management of keystone vulnerabilities ( kv); adaptive capacity ( ac) and quality ( q). Results show resilience of an emergency response organization can be described by a unique dynamic operational resilience f( R ero ) UV factor. A simplified approach of unique dynamic operational resilience is suggested by using a quick scan method to speed up the process of assessment.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and ReliabilitySame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207