Integrated risk management of hazardous processing facilities
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
Processing facilities handling large amounts of hazardous substances are attractive targets for terrorists. Thus, these work sites are exposed not only to accidents but also to intentional threats. Some research has separately studied risk caused by either potential accidental events or terrorist acts. However, studies focusing on integrated risk assessment and management (dealing with both safety and security issues) are lacking. This paper proposes an approach to assess and manage integrated risks. This method is based on an influence diagram which incorporates safety and security‐related factors into one framework. It considers the effects of management actions on both accidental and intentional risks. This method can help to detect hidden risk (i.e., the risk not recognized during design and operation stages) and ensure to reduce the real risk to an acceptable level by guiding the selection of management actions. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated using the overfilling risk management of an oil tank. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Process Saf Prog 38: 42–51, 2019
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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