Implementing Bayesian networks for ISO 31000:2018-based maritime oil spill risk management: State-of-art, implementation benefits and challenges, and future research directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of a large-scale oil spill remains significant in marine environments as international maritime transport continues to grow. The environmental as well as the socio-economic impacts of a large-scale oil spill could be substantial. Oil spill models and modeling tools for Pollution Preparedness and Response (PPR) can support effective risk management. However, there is a lack of integrated approaches that consider oil spill risks comprehensively, learn from all information sources, and treat the system uncertainties in an explicit manner. Recently, the use of the international ISO 31000:2018 risk management framework has been suggested as a suitable basis for supporting oil spill PPR risk management. Bayesian networks (BNs) are graphical models that express uncertainty in a probabilistic form and can thus support decision-making processes when risks are complex and data are scarce. While BNs have increasingly been used for oil spill risk assessment (OSRA) for PPR, no link between the BNs literature and the ISO 31000:2018 framework has previously been made. This study explores how Bayesian risk models can be aligned with the ISO 31000:2018 framework by offering a flexible approach to integrate various sources of probabilistic knowledge. In order to gain insight in the current utilization of BNs for oil spill risk assessment and management (OSRA-BNs) for maritime oil spill preparedness and response, a literature review was performed. The review focused on articles presenting BN models that analyze the occurrence of oil spills, consequence mitigation in terms of offshore and shoreline oil spill response, and impacts of spills on the variables of interest. Based on the results, the study discusses the benefits of applying BNs to the ISO 31000:2018 framework as well as the challenges and further research needs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".