MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752082125 · doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1370148

Dynamic risk assessment of complex systems using FCM

2017· article· en· W2752082125 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

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Complex systemSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceRisk assessmentRisk managementFuzzy cognitive mapFuzzy logicFuzzy setArtificial intelligenceBusinessComputer securityMembership function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysing risk of today’s complex systems is challenging due to the complex and dynamic nature of systems. The current risk analysis tools are not able to take the complex interactions among risks into account and therefore they can’t predict the behaviour of risks accurately. In an attempt to overcome this shortcoming, this paper proposes an integrated generalised decision support tool using fuzzy cognitive maps for dynamic risk assessment of complex systems. The proposed approach has the ability to prioritise risk factors and more importantly predict and analysis the influences of each individual risk factor/risk set on the other risks or on the outcomes of complex and critical systems by taking into account probability of occurrence and consequences of risks and also considering the complex dependencies between risk factors. These features could provide practitioners with realistic results in critical industries and able them to manage risks more efficiently.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.244 · 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