MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969869466 · doi:10.2118/195769-ms

Major Accident Hazards – Own Your Barrier

2019· article· en· W2969869466 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Simpson, F. Fitzgerald, Stuart Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazard analysisWorkgroupIdentification (biology)HazardRisk analysis (engineering)Near missEngineeringWorkforceHazardous wasteOccupational safety and healthForensic engineeringBusinessComputer securityComputer scienceWaste managementMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Health and Safety Executive's analysis shows poor hazard identification and risk analysis is a causal factor in 12 out of 14 recent major hydrocarbon releases, demonstrating that major accidents could be prevented if workers had a better understanding of major accident hazards (MAHs). Therefore, it is proposed that improving awareness of MAHs across the workforce, both onshore and offshore, would lead to better MAH management and a reduction in major accidents. Once the domain of process engineers, major accident hazard management has been largely overlooked by much of industry. It was acknowledged as a problem but ignored in the hope that specialists had it under control. Step Change in Safety's Major Accident Hazard Understanding workgroup responded to this by identifying different job roles (onshore and offshore), evaluating the resources to develop MAH understanding already available and creating a suite of resources to fill the gaps. These resources include an e-learning tool for onshore (office-based) personnel, bowtie lunch and learn sessions, gap analysis tools to identify training requirements of offshore jobs, senior leaders' workshops and a MAH Awareness programme. The MAH Awareness programme, consisting of short films and presentations which can be customised to suit specific worksites and job roles. Each of the four packs explores different aspects of major accident management including MAH identification and analysis, bowties and safety and environmental critical elements, barrier maintenance, assurance and verification and the importance of taking responsibility of ‘owning’ your barrier. Analysis of questionnaires completed before and after exposure to the programme demonstrates that knowledge of MAH management increased by approximately 30%. Additionally, the data demonstrates that elected safety representatives have a greater base knowledge of MAHs than the general offshore workforce, as do technical staff compared to non-technical and those employed by operators compared to contractor employees. Whether this increased knowledge gained through taking part in the MAH Awareness programme is retained or impacts the number of major accidents has not yet been analysed but data such as the number of major accidents, including hydrocarbon releases, will be examined over forthcoming years to evaluate the effectiveness of the resources developed.

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)0.015
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Offshore Europe Conference and ExhibitionSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207