An analysis of CSB investigation reports concerning the hierarchy of controls
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
Abstract Sixty‐three reports, studies, and bulletins resulting from process incident investigations conducted by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) have been analyzed for evidence of examples related to inherent safety, passive and active engineered safety, and procedural safety. These risk reduction measures, which collectively form the hierarchy of safety controls, were also analyzed for their contribution to both incident prevention and consequence mitigation. Over 200 examples from the hierarchy of controls were identified with the following breakdown: inherent safety (36% of total overall examples), passive engineered safety (8%), active engineered safety (14%), and procedural safety (42%). Numerous examples for both prevention and mitigation measures were found during the CSB report review. Inherently safer design (ISD) items were observed to be nearly equally split among the four primary principles of minimization (25% of total ISD examples), substitution (22%), moderation (25%), and simplification (27%). Widely applicable process safety management elements (in terms of a link to the identified hierarchical safety measures) were determined to be process and equipment integrity, training and performance, process knowledge and documentation, capital project review and design procedures, and management of change. © 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2011.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it