MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020291112

Knowledge elicitation techniques and application to nuclear plant maintenance

2006· article· en· W3020291112 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Eleanor Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoBruce Power
KeywordsComputer scienceEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new millennium has brought with it the opportunity of global trade which in turn requires the utmost in efficiency from each individual industry. This includes the nuclear power industry, a point which was emphasized when the electrical generation industry began to be de regulated across North America the late 1990s and re-emphasized when the northeast power grid of North America collapsed in the summer of 2003. This dissertation deals with reducing the cost of the maintenance function of Candu nuclear power plants and initiating a strong link between universities and the Canadian nuclear industry. This dissertation ultimately speaks to the great opportunity being presented by this approach at this time: of capturing the baby-boom generation's huge pool of knowledge before those people retire. It is expected that the protocols and procedures referenced here will have applicability across the many disciplines where collecting expert information from a similar age group is required. Various forms of RCM (reliability-centred maintenance) have been the tools of choice in industry for improving the maintenance function during the last 20 years. In this project, pilot studies, conducted at Bruce Power between 1999 and 2005, and reported on in this dissertation, lay out a path to implement statistical improvements as the next step after RCM in reducing the cost of the maintenance. Elicitation protocols, designed for the age group being elicited, address the much-documented issue of a lack of data. Clear, graphical, inferential statistical interfaces are accentuated and developed to aid in building the teams required to implement the various methodologies and to help in achieving funding targets. Graphical analysis and Crow/AMSAA (army materials systems analysis activity) plots are developed and demonstrated from the point of view of justifying the expenditures of cost reduction efforts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207