MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2493959120 · doi:10.2495/safe-v6-n2-209-218

Study on the safety management of toxic gas cylinder distribution using RFID

2016· article· en· W2493959120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bo-Hee Song, Jinhan Lee, Young-Do Jo, Kidong Park

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCylinderToxic gasRadio-frequency identificationLeakage (economics)Environmental scienceEngineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental engineeringComputer securityMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The usage of toxic gas has increased consistently by the needs of the high-tech industry. Unfortunately, the number of toxic gas accident has also increased and it might cause huge human and material damage which is occurred by toxic gas leakage and diffusion. Mainly, toxic gases are stored in cylinders, however, there is a high probability of abusing to terrorism for toxic gas cylinder and operators dealing with toxic gas manage their toxic gas cylinder individually. For these reasons, toxic gas cylinder needs tracking management on a national level. In this study, it suggests that the tracking management system of toxic gas cylinder using RFID (Radio-Frequency identification), which is able to handle systematically by data integrating with equal cylinder distribution in each company. It is essential that the data integration system of toxic gas cylinder must establish a standardized ID on each cylinder and manage the history of cylinder distribution on existing each system. This system is operating preliminarily on the three sites to verify. It is expected that accidents caused by terror will be dramatically reduced and the most advanced level of safety control will be achieved.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207