MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727871272 · doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2017.06.008

Human Error Probability Assessment During Maintenance Activities of Marine Systems

2017· article· en· W2727871272 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSafety and Health at Work · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Coastal Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersAustralian Research CouncilMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Tasmania
KeywordsHuman errorEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maintenance operations on-board ships are highly demanding. Maintenance operations are intensive activities requiring high man-machine interactions in challenging and evolving conditions. The evolving conditions are weather conditions, workplace temperature, ship motion, noise and vibration, and workload and stress. For example, extreme weather condition affects seafarers' performance, increasing the chances of error, and, consequently, can cause injuries or fatalities to personnel. An effective human error probability model is required to better manage maintenance on-board ships. The developed model would assist in developing and maintaining effective risk management protocols. Thus, the objective of this study is to develop a human error probability model considering various internal and external factors affecting seafarers' performance. METHODS: The human error probability model is developed using probability theory applied to Bayesian network. The model is tested using the data received through the developed questionnaire survey of >200 experienced seafarers with >5 years of experience. The model developed in this study is used to find out the reliability of human performance on particular maintenance activities. RESULTS: The developed methodology is tested on the maintenance of marine engine's cooling water pump for engine department and anchor windlass for deck department. In the considered case studies, human error probabilities are estimated in various scenarios and the results are compared between the scenarios and the different seafarer categories. The results of the case studies for both departments are also compared. CONCLUSION: The developed model is effective in assessing human error probabilities. These probabilities would get dynamically updated as and when new information is available on changes in either internal (i.e., training, experience, and fatigue) or external (i.e., environmental and operational conditions such as weather conditions, workplace temperature, ship motion, noise and vibration, and workload and stress) factors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.294 · 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