MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990947886 · doi:10.1115/omae2019-96663

A Hybrid Methodology for Maritime Accident Analysis: The Case of Ship Collision

2019· article· en· W2990947886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ludfi Pratiwi Bowo, Ramdhani Eka Prilana, Masao Furusho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman errorHuman reliabilityBridge (graph theory)CollisionReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceTask (project management)Human resourcesHuman resource managementAccident analysisAccident (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringEngineeringComputer securityBusinessSystems engineeringKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Human error is recognized as the most common factor that causes maritime accidents. Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) as a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) has been widely applied in various industries. However, in the maritime industry, machine, media, and management are also considered as factors that can strongly affect human behavior, judgment, and other human elements. These factors are particularly relevant for bridge resource management that perform the task of maintaining a proper look-out. Therefore, this study considers the effect of those factors integrated with 4M (man, machine, media, management) factors. The study was conducted with 37 collisions accident reports from 2007–2017, using data from the NTSB and TSB-Canada. There are 229 Error Producing Condition (EPC) found in this study. The classification of the EPC to the 4M conducted in this study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207