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 OpenAlexaff
Rouzbeh Abbassi, Faisal Khan, Nima Khakzad, Brian Veitch, Sören Ehlers

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUTAS Research RepositorySame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207