Chemical safety board investigation reports and the hierarchy of controls: Round 2
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
Twenty‐five reports of the US Chemical Safety Board over the period December 2009–May 2016 were analyzed for evidence of examples related to inherent safety, passive, and active engineered safety, and procedural safety. These measures were also analyzed for their contribution to incident prevention and consequence mitigation, as well as their applicability to specific elements of the PSM system recommended by the Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering. This work represents the continuation of a previous study that performed a similar analysis for 60 CSB reports written during the period 1998–2010. The update provided here further illustrates the significant value of CSB investigation reports in demonstrating lessons learned and in training and educational efforts. Procedural safety was identified as the most common risk control measure cited in CSB reports, while the efficacy of inherent safety principles in incident prevention and mitigation has been consistently recognized by the CSB in its investigations. Risk reduction efforts aimed at incident prevention were found to be cited more often than those aimed at consequence mitigation. Active engineered safety measures were determined to be common among mitigation efforts due to the prevalence in the process industries of emergency alarms and fire suppression systems. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 37: 459–466, 2018
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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