Quantitative Safety Risk Assessment using Aviation Safety Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To manage State Safety Program (SSP) in a more integrative and proactive manner, an aviation safety authority of the state shall detect and assess the risk of emerging or hidden safety hazards before they provoke accidents or incidents(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">ICAO, 2018</xref>). In case of South Korea, safety risk assessment is conducted by calculating the likelihood and severity of the hazard following ICAO’s safety management manual. It is reasonable to extract the safety risk likelihood by calculating the number of occurrence caused by the hazard. However, it is ambiguous to assess the safety risk severity defined as the extent of harm that might be expected to occur as a consequence of the identified hazard. In this paper, a safety risk assessment method which quantitatively calculates the risk of hazard using aviation safety data(i.e. aviation safety mandatory report, etc.) is proposed. By utilizing the proposed method, the existing process that safety risk is being subjectively assessed by safety inspectors can be supplemented. So that essential aviation safety policy decision making can be accomplished by the accurate result of safety risk assessment.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".