Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses the insights from the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) methodology to help identify human actions currently modeled in the single unit PSA that may need to be modified to account for additional challenges imposed by a multi-unit accident as well as identify possible new human actions that might be modeled to more accurately characterize multi-unit risk. In identifying these potential human action impacts, the use of the SPAR-H strategy to include both errors in diagnosis and errors in action is considered as well as identifying characteristics of a multi-unit accident scenario that may impact the selection of the performance shaping factors (PSFs) used in SPAR-H. The lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi reactor accident will be addressed to further help identify areas where improved modeling may be required. While these multi-unit impacts may require modifications to a Level 1 PSA model, it is expected to have much more importance for Level 2 modeling. There is little currently written specifically about multi-unit HRA issues. A review of related published research will be presented. While this paper cannot answer all issues related to multi-unit HRA, it will hopefully serve as a starting point to generate discussion and spark additional ideas towards the proper treatment of HRA in a multi-unit PSA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".