An integrated offshore oil spill response decision making approach by human factor analysis and fuzzy preference evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human factors/errors (such as inappropriate actions by operators and unsafe supervision by organizations) are a primary cause of oil spill incidents. To investigate the influences of active operational failures and unsafe latent factors in offshore oil spill accidents, an integrated human factor analysis and decision support process has been developed. The system is comprised of a Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) framework to qualitatively evaluate the influence of various factors and errors associated with the multiple operational stages considered for oil spill preparedness and response (e.g., oil spill occurrence, spill monitoring, decision making/contingency planning, and spill response); coupled with quantitative data analysis by Fuzzy Set Theory and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Fuzzy-TOPSIS) to enhance decision making during response operations. The efficiency of the integrated human factor analysis and decision support system is tested with data from a case study to generate a comprehensive priority rank, a robust sensitivity analysis, and other theoretical/practical insights. The proposed approach improves our knowledge on the significance of human factors/errors on oil spill accidents and response operations; and provides an improved support tool for decision making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".