MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188266263

SAFE OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR FETTLING OPERATIONS AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL IN FOUNDRY

2014· article· en· W2188266263 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chandan Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir pollutionPollutionAir quality indexHarmEnvironmental sciencePollution preventionWork (physics)PollutantControl (management)Waste managementEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringMeteorology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

 Abstract— The ultimate aim of an industry is to create a work place safe for their workers. One of the important ways to achieve a safe working place is a safe working procedure. The aim of my project is to observe and analyze all unsafe working procedure in all fettling operations and then prepare a Safe operating procedure in each operation in fettling area. A substance in the air that can be adverse to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant. Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or man-made. Controlling and curtailing air pollution from industrial sources is essential to improving Canadian air quality. Industrial sources of air pollution include factories, electrical generation plants and incinerators. Because these sources exist in fixed locations, they are often referred to as point sources. Air pollution is the major and obvious hazard in the industry like cement industry, foundry, mines etc. controlling or eliminating air pollution is very essential has it may cause harm to the workers instantly or chronically. The aim of my project is to perform source emission monitoring & ambient air quality monitoring and compare with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and control them with proper control measures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.352
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207