Human factor analysis inside a peculiar job environment at the Gran Sasso mountain underground laboratory of Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the high social, economic and image costs associated with every single incident, the first indepth studies on the importance of the Human Factor (HF) have been carried out since the 70s in the field of aviation, both military and civilian, and in the nuclear field. To date there are several methodologies by which it is possible to estimate the human error probability. However, all these techniques have the disadvantage of not being able to analyse the unconscious component involved. Therefore, the aim of this research is to integrate into the analysis of the human factor some psychodynamic investigation techniques, capable, indeed, to stress the unconscious component of potential sub-threshold disorders and further assess what does it mean to work in a particular working environment such as the Gran Sasso mountain underground laboratories (LNGS or Gran Sasso National Laboratory) of Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it