MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290350025 · doi:10.1080/10803548.2015.1116814

Equipment failures and their contribution to industrial incidents and accidents in the manufacturing industry

2015· article· en· W2290350025 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Bourassa, François Gauthier, Georges Abdul-Nour

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccidentalEngineeringReliability (semiconductor)Heavy equipmentOccupational accidentPoison controlWork (physics)Industrial equipmentManufacturingFatal accidentForensic engineeringHuman factors and ergonomicsRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringBusinessMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accidental events in manufacturing industries can be caused by many factors, including work methods, lack of training, equipment design, maintenance and reliability. This study is aimed at determining the contribution of failures of commonly used industrial equipment, such as machines, tools and material handling equipment, to the chain of causality of industrial accidents and incidents. Based on a case study which aimed at the analysis of an existing pulp and paper company's accident database, this paper examines the number, type and gravity of the failures involved in these events and their causes. Results from this study show that equipment failures had a major effect on the number and severity of accidents accounted for in the database: 272 out of 773 accidental events were related to equipment failure, where 13 of them had direct human consequences. Failures that contributed directly or indirectly to these events are analyzed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207