MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922157964 · doi:10.33889/ijmems.2018.3.3-018

SIL Implementation on Safety Functions in Mass Transit System

2018· article· en· W2922157964 on OpenAlexaff
James Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematical Engineering and Management Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIEC 61508Safety standardsTurnkeyInterpretation (philosophy)Function (biology)Functional safetySafety instrumented systemEngineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessReliability engineeringOperations managementTelecommunicationsWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of Safety Integrity Level (SIL) has been developed within different systems of standards (IEC 61508, EN50129 and DEF-STAN 00-56). These standards are applied in different areas: control technology (IEC 61508), railway technology (EN50128 and EN 50129), and defense technology (DEF-STAN-00-56). Nowadays, a lot of the mass transit turnkey projects around the world demand the contractors to follow CENELEC standards and SIL concept for the safety function implementation. Although the concept of SIL is mentioned in these standards, the interpretation of the concept of SIL in these standards is not consistent and unequivocal. This paper is written to elaborate the anomalies of SIL interpretation among these various standards in order for safety engineers to obtain a more detailed view on the concept of SIL over these standards.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mathematical Engineering and Management SciencesSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207