MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411414308 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.09.711

Correlation and Dependency in Multivariate Process Risk Assessment

2015· article· en· W2411414308 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)UnivariateMultivariate statisticsCorrelationComputer scienceEconometricsRandom variableDependency (UML)StatisticsData miningRisk analysis (engineering)MathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Process safety and risk assessment are often multidimensional and hence require the joint modeling of several potentially correlated random variables. Any effort to address the correlation among the input variables is important and could improve the accuracy in practical applications of risk assessment models. This paper discusses the problems with correlated variables used in risk assessment and presents a copula-based technique to model dependency among variables to improve uncertainty analysis. Using the copula approach, capturing the dependence structure among different risk factors and estimating the univariate risk marginals can be separated. This advantage simplifies the overall risk estimation for systems with multiple dependent risk sources. The advantage of the copula-based framework for generalization over the traditional correlation analysis technique is demonstrated using a case study. Methods are also presented for copula selection and estimation of the copula parameters.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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