A Knowledge-Driven Model to Assess Inherent Safety in Process Infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Process safety has drawn increasing attention in recent years and has been investigated from different perspectives, such as quantitative risk analysis, consequence modeling, and regulations. However, rare attempts have been made to focus on inherent safety design assessment, despite being the most cost-effective safety tactic and its vital role in sustainable development and safe operation of process infrastructure. Accordingly, the present research proposed a knowledge-driven model to assess inherent safety in process infrastructure under uncertainty. We first developed a holistic taxonomy of contributing factors into inherent safety design considering chemical, reaction, process, equipment, human factors, and organizational concerns associated with process plants. Then, we used subject matter experts, content validity ratio (CVR), and content validity index (CVI) to validate the taxonomy and data collection tools. We then employed a fuzzy inference system and the Extent Analysis (EA) method for knowledge acquisition under uncertainty. We tested the proposed model on a steam methane-reforming plant that produces hydrogen as renewable energy. The findings revealed the most contributing factors and indicators to improve the inherent safety design in the studied plant and effectively support the decision-making process to assign proper safety countermeasures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".