MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742185097 · doi:10.1111/risa.12879

Dynamic Blowout Risk Analysis Using Loss Functions

2017· article· en· W2742185097 on OpenAlexafffund
Majeed Abimbola, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and LabradorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsOffshore drillingRisk analysis (engineering)DrillingComputer scienceOperational riskFocus (optics)Event (particle physics)Risk assessmentEngineeringRisk managementReliability engineeringComputer securityMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most risk analysis approaches are static; failing to capture evolving conditions. Blowout, the most feared accident during a drilling operation, is a complex and dynamic event. The traditional risk analysis methods are useful in the early design stage of drilling operation while falling short during evolving operational decision making. A new dynamic risk analysis approach is presented to capture evolving situations through dynamic probability and consequence models. The dynamic consequence models, the focus of this study, are developed in terms of loss functions. These models are subsequently integrated with the probability to estimate operational risk, providing a real-time risk analysis. The real-time evolving situation is considered dependent on the changing bottom-hole pressure as drilling progresses. The application of the methodology and models are demonstrated with a case study of an offshore drilling operation evolving to a blowout.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.338 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207