MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2576948029

Hotspots for Vessel-to-Vessel and Vessel-to-Fix Object Accidents Along the Great Lakes Seaway

2016· article· en· W2576948029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bircan Arslannur, Frank Saccomanno

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)Research vesselGeologyForensic engineeringMarine engineeringEngineeringOceanographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research focuses on the freight vessel accidents occurring on the Great Lakes Seaway (GLS) extending from Rimouski (on the St. Lawrence) to Sault Ste. Marie (connecting Lake Huron to Lake Superior). Over the past decade, an average of 112 vessel accidents per year have been reported along the GLS, 20% of which took place as a result of groundings and collisions with other vessels. The vast majority of these accidents took place on river and canal/lock segments of the seaway. Freight vessel accidents along the GLS tend to be clustered at specific unsafe locations. In this research, locations with high vessel accident occurrence are referred to as hotspots. The first step in vessel accident reduction is to identify hotspots along the GLS, which then become prime candidates for future safety intervention initiatives. Given the rare and random nature of vessel accidents, the identification of hotspots needs to be based on robust site-specific prediction models. This research presents an empirical Bayes prediction model developed for the Great Lakes Seaway (GLS) that considers four types of accident scenarios: vessel-to-vessel (VV) and vessel-to-fix objects (VF) for river and canal/lock sections. Hotspot sites are determined using two risk tolerance thresholds: 95th percentile exceedance (high risk sites) and 85th percentile exceedance (moderate and high-risk sites). For the 95th percentile threshold and VV accidents, a total of five hotspots were identified over the 1600 km length of the GLS being studied (excluding lake or port areas). Of the designated hotspot sections, 10 km (60.6% of the total hotspot length) were located along natural river courses and the rest at canals/locks. For VF accidents, all of the high-risk hotspots were located at canal/lock sections (a total of 15.5 km). Reducing the threshold to 85th percentile resulted in a 7.8% increase in seaway length that is designated as a hotspot. VV and VF accidents were combined and for these accidents, hotspots were obtained for the 95th and 85th percentile thresholds. For the 95th percentile a total of five sections (14 km, 0.88% of the seaway) were identified as hotspots, and for the 85th percentile the number of hotspots were increased to 16 sections (47.72 km, 3% of the seaway). These unsafe locations were also compared with observed historical accidents along the GLS, and the location of the observed accidents were found to be consistent with hotspot designated sections along the GLS for both thresholds.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicMaritime Navigation and SafetyFrench-language works237,207