MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013575466 · doi:10.3303/cet1977066

Implementing Critical Control Management in a Mature Processing Plant

2019· article· en· W3013575466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Murphy, Peter Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationControl (management)Process (computing)Process managementReliability (semiconductor)Risk analysis (engineering)Senior managementAsset (computer security)Asset managementComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringEngineering managementKnowledge managementComputer securityPublic relationsPolitical sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes how Process Safety Management (PSM) was improved at a mature asset following a significant process safety event. An unconventional approach was adopted to enable rapid improvements drawing on the Critical Control Approach documented in Energy Safety Canada's A Barrier Focused Approach (similar to the International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) publication, Critical Control Management; Implementation Guide) as well as high reliability organisational (HRO) principles.The successful approach owes its intellectual origins to the concept of Safety Critical Elements (SCEs) first enunciated by the UK Health and Safety Executive following the Piper Alpha disaster. The history of the critical control approach is briefly discussed and how the original SCE idea has been enhanced. In particular, the paper will describe how the critical controls (or barriers) have been made more visible to those charged with implementing and managing them.The paper will describe the successes and difficulties of this approach including the shift in thinking required on the part of process safety experts as well as changes to organisational structure. The paper will also illustrate how the existing documentation of the critical controls was substantially reduced and rationalised to make the PSM problem (as perceived by senior managers) more manageable and sustainable. Finally, the paper will consider the extent to which well-known international PSM frameworks enhance or inhibit the adoption of this approach.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207