An Expected Consequence Approach to Route Choice in the Maritime Transportation of Crude Oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maritime transportation is the major conduit of international trade, and the primary link for global crude oil movement. Given the volume of oil transported on international maritime links, it is not surprising that oil spills of both minor and major types result, although most of the risk-related work has been confined to the local settings. We propose an expected consequence approach for assessing oil-spill risk from intercontinental transportation of crude oil that not only adheres to the safety guidelines specified by the International Maritime Organization but also outlines a novel technique that makes use of coarse global data to estimate accident probabilities. The proposed estimation technique, together with four of the most popular cost-of-spill models from the literature, were applied to study and analyze a realistic size problem instance. Numerical analyses showed that: a shorter route may not necessarily be less risky; an understanding of the inherent oil-spill risk of different routes could potentially facilitate tanker routing decisions; and the associated negotiations over insurance premium between the transport company and the not-for-profit prevention and indemnity clubs. Finally, we note that only the linear model should be used with one of the three nonlinear cost-of-spill models for evaluating tanker routes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".