A Proposition for Combining Rough Sets, Fuzzy Logic and FRAM to Address Methodological Challenges in Safety Management: A Discussion Paper
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
In recent years, the focus in safety management has shifted from failure-based analysis towards a more systemic perspective, redefining a successful or failed performance as a complex and emergent event rather than as a conclusion of singular errors or root causes. This paradigm shift has also necessitated the introduction of innovative tools capable of capturing the complex and dynamic nature of modern sociotechnical systems. In our research, we argued at previous stages for adopting a more systemic and human-centric perspective to evaluate the context of aircraft de-icing operations. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) was applied in the first stage for this purpose. Consequently, fuzzy logic was combined with FRAM in the second stage to provide a quantified representation of performance variability. Fuzzy logic was used as a quantification tool suitable for computing with natural language. Several limitations were found in the data collection and rule generation process for the first prototype. In the third phase, the model was further improved by integrating rough sets as a data-mining tool to generate and reduce the size of the rule base and classify outcomes. In this paper, we reflect on the three stages of the project and discuss in a qualitative manner the challenges and limitations faced in the development and application of the models. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the three models as experienced in our case are presented at the end. The objective is to present an outlook for future studies to address methodological limitations in the study of complex sociotechnical systems.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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