How To Design a Robust Emergency Preparedness Organization for Offshore Drilling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to Design a Robust Emergency Preparedness Organization for Offshore Drilling Liv Nielsen; Liv Nielsen Norsk Agip Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Agathe Holmefjord Agathe Holmefjord Scandpower Risk Management Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86738-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86738-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share MailTo Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Nielsen, Liv, and Agathe Holmefjord. "How to Design a Robust Emergency Preparedness Organization for Offshore Drilling." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86738-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search Abstract In this paper we will discuss if and how experiences from designing a robust emergency preparedness organisation (a requirement in Norwegian regulations) can be of use in a wider context. We will further describe the background for the requirement in the regulation and the relevance for normal operations. We will also describe some of the characteristics of a robust organization using insights from relevant R&D projects and lessons learned from accidents. We will use a practical case study from a second line emergency preparedness organization in Norsk Agip.The experience gained in Norsk Agip is that to a certain degree it is possible to design robustness into an emergency preparedness organization. Since this is a small organization, long lasting emergency situations represent a challenge. Keywords: contingency planning, norsk agip, upstream oil & gas, robust organisation, robust emergency preparedness organization, emergency organisation, hazard, society of petroleum engineers, team performance, requirement Subjects: HSSE & Social Responsibility Management, Safety, Risk Management and Decision-Making, Contingency planning and emergency response, Emergency preparedness and training Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".