MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587680276 · doi:10.1115/imece2016-65443

Risk Management for Rail Safety: Post Lac Megantic

2016· article· en· W2587680276 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vijay Raghunathan, Ron Mitchell, Robin Pitblado, Hong Mei Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 14: Emerging Technologies; Materials: Genetics to Structures; Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsAecom (Canada)
FundersDNV GL
KeywordsRulemakingFlammable liquidRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementRisk assessmentTrainTransport engineeringHazardEngineeringSafety standardsTimelineComputer scienceBusinessComputer securityReliability engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following several recent serious rail accidents in North America, changes in regulation and increased public awareness is driving the need to address gaps in rail safety. The industry and regulators have numerous safety initiatives; however prescriptive standards in combination with a performance based approach could be a powerful tool for understanding and mitigating risk in a cost effective way. This paper reviews the principles of safety risk management that can be applied to safe transportation of flammable hydrocarbons by Rail. FRA’s proposed rulemaking on Risk reduction program and its potential impact on the industry are also addressed. The approach proposed in this paper focuses on existing and new proposed safeguards/barriers and how they could be monitored and managed. The paper aims to set the path forward for structured risk based thinking in managing rail safety. The first part of the paper explains the barrier based risk assessment approach using the Lac Megantic accident as an example. A bow-tie is developed to deconstruct the incident timeline and to capture the safeguards that existed at that time and their working status. This diagram cross references Transport Canada’s Investigation findings. The second part of the paper evaluates the new mitigation measures proposed by FRA HM 251 rulemaking (“Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains” Final Rulemaking”) as potential safeguards and their impact on the overall risk of transportation. A baseline risk is first established for transporting crude by rail assuming some common safeguards in place. A simple Quantitative Risk Assessment methodology including likelihood and consequence was then used to estimate the base case risk. Risk mitigation and effect of any additional new measures like Changes in Rail Tank Car design, Oil Conditioning, Enhanced Braking to Mitigate Damage in Derailments, Speed Limit changes, Positive train control, Train manning when loading are assessed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 14: Emerging Technologies; Materials: Genetics to Structures; Safety Engineering and Risk AnalysisSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207