General Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for Accelerator and Detector Magnet Design at JLab
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to develop a risk management procedure, which could be applied to the magnet design process, for both superconducting and normal magnets at the Jefferson Laboratory (JLab). This procedure allowed us to identify the key risks at each of the critical phases of design and propose procedures, tests, and checks to mitigate each risk. In this article, we present a qualitative and quantitative risk management procedure commonly referred to a “failure modes and effects analysis.” As part of this procedure, we calculated a risk priority number (RPN) for each activity of the process, identified the most critical activities and proposed mitigation activities, which in turn resulted in a revised RPN. Another benefit of this procedure was the identification of appropriate “control and hold” points within the design process, which allowed one to review and approve a particular outcome before proceeding to the next sequential activity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it