MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255168628 · doi:10.1115/omae2015-41669

Inherent Safety Aspects for Layout Design of a Floating LNG Facility

2015· article· en· W2255168628 on OpenAlexaff
Peiwei Xin, Salim Ahmed, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 10: Petroleum Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomino effectComputer scienceReliability engineeringLiquefied natural gasPage layoutProcess (computing)Inherent safetyIndex (typography)EngineeringNatural gas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines the aspects of inherent safety for the topside layout design of a floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility. An FLNG plant requires a compact design; meanwhile, it needs the safest layout to tackle multi-dimensional safety issues. Thus, the layout of the facility is a paramount factor for ensuring its safety in a cost effective way. Three layouts are proposed and evaluated from the inherent safety perspective. The layout of the process area is mainly focused due to its higher risks. Integrated inherent safety index, cost index and domino hazard index are used to evaluate the three layouts in quantitative terms. An optimal layout is finally chosen based on both inherent safety and cost performance.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 10: Petroleum TechnologySame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207