MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946287561 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0513

Performance-based regulations for safety management systems in the Canadian railway industry: an analytical discussion

2019· article· en· W2946287561 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lianne Lefsrud, Renato Macciotta, Anne Nkoro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafety management systemsDerailmentSafety cultureProcess safety managementTransport engineeringEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementSafety caseAdaptation (eye)BusinessManagement systemOperations managementTrack (disk drive)FinanceHazardous wasteManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Railway Safety Act regulations require that railways implement safety management systems (SMS). The intent of this requirement was to promote companies’ safety culture, better management of safety risks, and demonstration of compliance with rules and engineering standards in day-to-day operations, while also reflecting on their processes and becoming more innovative. Yet, the railway disaster at Lac Mégantic in 2013 — which claimed 47 lives — demonstrated that SMS have been applied unevenly by railroads. A Canadian Pacific railroad derailment on 3 February 2019 with strikingly similar circumstances — which claimed 3 lives — demonstrates that these safety issues persist. In this article, we discuss and propose the adaptation of enhanced SMS implementation, within clearer performance-based regulation and risk management methods. We draw from other jurisdictions and research to demonstrate how this would encourage continuous improvement and innovation by railway operators and in concert with partners and relevant stakeholders.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0170.019
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207