MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738455668 · doi:10.3940/rina.2017.a3.351

Risk analysis of offshore transportation accident in arctic waters

2017· article· en· W2738455668 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueUTAS Research Repository · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticFault tree analysisThe arcticAccident (philosophy)Submarine pipelineEnvironmental scienceMarkov chainCollisionRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEngineeringOceanographyBusinessGeologyReliability engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A methodology for risk analysis applicable to shipping in arctic waters is introduced. This methodology uses the Bowtie relationship to represent an accident causes and consequences. It is further used to quantify the probability of a ship accident and also the related accident consequences during navigation in arctic waters. Detailed fault trees for three possible ship accident scenarios in arctic transits are developed and represented as bowties. Factors related to cold and harsh conditions and their effects on grounding, foundering, and collision are considered as part of this study. To illustrate the application of the methodology, it is applied to a case of an oil-tanker navigating on the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The methodology is implemented in a Markov Chain Monte Carlo framework to assess the uncertainties arisen from historical data and expert judgments involved in the risk analysis.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.325 · 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