MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890421613 · doi:10.1201/b22260

Safety, Reliability, Human Factors, and Human Error in Nuclear Power Plants

2017· book· en· W2890421613 on OpenAlexaff
B.S. Dhillon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman reliabilityHuman errorReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringNuclear powerNuclear power plantComputer sciencePower (physics)Environmental scienceEngineeringPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year billions of dollars are being spent in the area of nuclear power generation to design, construct, manufacture, operate, and maintain various types of systems around the globe. Many times these systems fail due to safety, reliability, human factors, and human error related problems. The main objective of this book is to combine nuclear power plant safety, reliability, human factors, and human error into a single volume for those individuals that work closely during the nuclear power plant design phase, as well as other phases, thus eliminating the need to consult many different and diverse sources in obtaining the desired information.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207