MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2996590687 · doi:10.9734/bjast/2016/22559

Process Safety Management in Plasma Experiment and Generation System

2015· article· en· W2996590687 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Bondarenko, Hossam A. Gabbar

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Applied Science & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess managementProcess (computing)BusinessProcess safety managementComputer scienceEngineeringWaste managementHazardous wasteOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Experimental Plasma Generation System (EPGS) is proposed for studying and investigating plasma behavior in vacuum conditions and under the influence of the varying boundary conditions. Furthermore, (EPGS) is intended to verify the computational models with the physical data. The safety design of EPGS takes into consideration the target safety system design, input parameters, output parameters, measurement techniques, and the fault propagation scenarios with respect to the Process Safety Management (PSM) via the IEC 61508. Also, the design of the Target Real Time Safety System (TRTS) for EPGS will be explained in relation to its primary experimental functions. The TRTS will be simulated using Simulink, with errors randomly generated at key cracking points, and the shut down procedure will be executed based on the deterministic algorithm for the Real Time Safety Verification (RTSV). In the nutshell, the cumulative outcome of the current work is to provide a design for plasma experimentation device that will have scalable properties in both the physical parameters, as well as the safety parameters.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Applied Science & Technology→Same topicRisk and Safety Analysis→French-language works237,207→