MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894259720 · doi:10.1177/1541931218621411

Bayesian Model of Operator Challenges in Maritime Pilotage

2018· article· en· W2894259720 on OpenAlexaff
Jørgen Ernstsen, Musharraf, Nazir

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilotageCrewBayesian networkOperations researchMarine safetyComputer scienceBayesian probabilityEngineeringAeronauticsMarine engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maritime pilotage operations are required for many vessels in their early and final parts of their voyages. The pilotage operations are meant to increase safety and efficiency for sailing in challenging areas which local maritime pilots have expert knowledge of. Regardless, several accidents involving pilotage operations have occurred (e.g. Federal Kivalina, Godafoss, and Crete Cement accidents), suggesting necessary further research and understanding of the full extent of the associated operational challenges. In the current study, we empirically investigated and identified 15 challenges associated with a Norwegian pilotage operation using interviews and content analysis. The 15 challenges are quantified and integrated into a conceptual Bayesian Network model for helping to identify the probability of the crew to face complications during the pilotage. This modeling of navigational challenges in maritime operations can infer and pinpoint areas of improvement. Finally, we discuss the results and implications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicMaritime Navigation and SafetyFrench-language works237,207