MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773968277 · doi:10.2495/safe-v8-n2-187-199

An emergency response decision matrix against terrorist attacks with improvised device in chemical clusters

2018· article· en· W2773968277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Behnaz Hosseinnia, Nima Khakzad, Genserik Reniers

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical plantEmergency responseExplosive materialEmergency planDecision treeComputer securityPlan (archaeology)Chemical warfareDomino effectDecision matrixComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringOperations researchMedical emergencyData miningMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical industrial areas may constitute potential targets for deliberate actions by terrorists. Terrorists having sufficient knowledge of chemical process operations or plant layout may take advantage of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to cause major events such as fire, explosion and toxic gas dispersion with cross-border consequences in chemical clusters. Thus, an efficient cluster-wise emergency plan to enhance the promptness and efficacy of responding to such attacks is crucial. In this study, the effects of blast wave caused by IEDs are assessed and its potentiality in triggering domino scenarios are analysed. A decision tree is developed to determine the emergency level of each company within the cluster based on the attack outcomes. Furthermore, an alert notification system is set based on a decision matrix. Finally, the identified emergency levels and the alert levels are presented in form of a multi-plant decision matrix. The application of the developed methodology is demonstrated in a case study.

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)0.003
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 score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207