MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513207392 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22622

CSChE chemical spill environmental/ecological risk assessment guideline development

2016· article· en· W2513207392 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Manny Marta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsPublic Safety Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineScope (computer science)CredibilityStakeholderProcess (computing)BusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Government (linguistics)Product (mathematics)Risk assessmentEnvironmental resource managementChemical industryEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering (CSChE) Process Safety Management (PSM) Division, with representation from the chemical and oil industry, government, and some other interested parties, concluded that there is no guideline commonly recognized by the chemical industries in Canada for conducting environmental/ecological risk assessments (ERA) involving postulated acute chemical/energy product spills from facilities of interest. These facilities would include those that produce, process, store, distribute, handle, or transport chemicals or energy products. This paper explains the need for this type of guideline in Canada. It will also describe the expertise and stakeholder representation involved in order to optimize credibility and acceptance. Furthermore, it will include information on a proposed scope, objectives, and content for a prospective environmental risk assessment guideline, with an exclusive focus on acute chemical spill events involving fixed and transportation sources. This guideline will also support elements of the proposed CSA Standard on Process Safety Management (PSM).

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207