MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200199711 · doi:10.31217/p.35.2.10

Operational failure assessment of Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) in harsh offshore environments

2021· article· en· W4200199711 on OpenAlexaff
Samson Nitonye, Sidum Adumene, Cyril U. Orji, Anietie Effiong Udo

Bibliographic record

VenuePomorstvo · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemotely operated underwater vehicleFault tree analysisSubseaMean time between failuresFailure mode and effects analysisReliability engineeringEngineeringReliability (semiconductor)Probabilistic logicRemotely operated vehicleComputer scienceMarine engineeringFailure rateAutomotive engineeringRobotArtificial intelligenceMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For an effective integrity assessment of marine robotic in offshore environments, the elements’ failure characteristics need to be understood. A structured probabilistic methodology is proposed for the operational failure assessment (OFA) characteristics of ROV. The first step is to assess the likely failure mode of the ROV system and its support systems. This captures the interaction and failure induced events during operation. The identified potential failure modes are further developed into logical connectivity based on the cause-effect relationship. The logical framework is modeled using the fault tree analysis technique to predict the ROV operational failure probability in an uncertain harsh environment. The fault tree analysis captured the logical relationship between the primary, intermediate, and top events probability. The importance measure criteria were adopted to identify the most probable events, links, and their importance on the failure propagation. The model was demonstrated with an ROV for deep arctic water subsea operations. The result identified the control system, communication linkages, human factor, among others, as most critical in the ROV operational failure. The methodology’s application provides core information on the Mean time between failure (MTBF) of the ROV system that could aid integrity management and provides a guide on early remedial action against total failure.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePomorstvoSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207