Human Error in Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Deployment: A System Dynamics Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) for various applications have grown with maturing technology and improved accessibility. The deployment of AUVs for under-ice marine science research in the Antarctic is one such example. However, a higher risk of AUV loss is present during such endeavors due to the extremities in the Antarctic. A thorough analysis of risks is therefore crucial for formulating effective risk control policies and achieving a lower risk of loss. Existing risk analysis approaches focused predominantly on the technical aspects, as well as identifying static cause and effect relationships in the chain of events leading to AUV loss. Comparatively, the complex interrelationships between risk variables and other aspects of risk such as human errors have received much lesser attention. In this article, a systems-based risk analysis framework facilitated by system dynamics methodology is proposed to overcome existing shortfalls. To demonstrate usefulness of the framework, it is applied on an actual AUV program to examine the occurrence of human error during Antarctic deployment. Simulation of the resultant risk model showed an overall decline in human error incident rate with the increase in experience of the AUV team. Scenario analysis based on the example provided policy recommendations in areas of training, practice runs, recruitment policy, and setting of risk tolerance level. The proposed risk analysis framework is pragmatically useful for risk analysis of future AUV programs to ensure the sustainability of operations, facilitating both better control and monitoring of risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".