MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046329508 · doi:10.48336/egm5-cd40

Can we stop learning safety by accident?

2020· dissertation· en· W3046329508 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Pike

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewAccident (philosophy)AccidentalAeronauticsEngineeringNear missSubmarine pipelineAccident investigationForensic engineeringUnit (ring theory)Operations managementPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question has been asked in many forums, why are major accidents still occurring? Awareness is an important basic learning factor to properly manage the lessons to be learned from major accidents. Over time, the recommendations made following an accident may be forgotten, procedures allowed to lapse, changes are made to equipment and the accident is just waiting to happen again. The memory within an organization that should help to prevent process safety accidents decays thus allowing accidents to repeat. It has been 38 years since the loss of all 84 crew members on the Ocean Ranger, the largest mobile offshore drilling unit of its day. At 1:10 a.m. EST on February 15, 1982, the Ocean Ranger’s crew sent a mayday call and abandoned the rig at 1:30 a.m. No one survived. There were no eye witnesses to tell what happened. Investigators were left with some technical evidence and the testimony from others. While the investigation report and recommendations from a Royal Commission into the Ocean Ranger tragedy changed the offshore safety regime of the time, can we learn more by re-examining the past? Can we stop learning safety by accident? Safety and environmental risk go hand in hand with industrial development. However, it is unclear whether there is a linear or nonlinear relationship between risk and industrial development. Perhaps, it is case dependent. Some industrial endeavors such as offshore development, activities in a harsher environment, or development requiring new technologies (untested and untrusted technologies) may pose a higher risk (nonlinear) than more conventional industrial development activities (e.g., petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, pipeline transportation, and the like). Public perception plays a critical role in defining the risk versus development relationship. The public perception of risk is dependent on awareness and understanding of potential hazards and their likelihood of occurrence, and most importantly, effective communication of these along with the associated uncertainty. Public awareness can have a profound effect on the development of public policy, which in many cases is driven more by perception rather than by sound science. Two commonly used concepts of policy and decision-making will be investigated, the Precautionary Principle (PP) and As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). A clearer understanding of both approaches with an illustrative example will be provided. A process to help readers understand where and when PP versus ALARP would be most applicable is proposed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207