MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386927655 · doi:10.7202/1091749ar

La tragédie de Lac-Mégantic –une gestion des risques déficiente

2013· article· fr· W4386927655 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rémi Moreau

Bibliographic record

VenueAssurances et gestion des risques · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteur passe en revue la terrible tragédie qui est survenue aux premières heures d’un samedi, le 7 juillet 2013, qui a détruit une partie de la petite municipalité québécoise de Lac-Mégantic, lorsque le déraillement d’un train sans conducteur, transportant des produits pétroliers hautement a provoqué une explosion gigantesque, tuant sur le coup 47 personnes se trouvant à proximité de l’explosion. Des jours et des mois après l’hécatombe provoqué par le train fantôme appartenant à la compagnie Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, dont le siège est dans l’État du Maine et affiliée avec la maison-mère Rail Word Inc., sise à Chicago, tout un lot de questions reliées à la gestion des risques remontent à la surface. Une longue chaîne de responsabilités est identifiée : la nature de la compagnie MMA, le disfonctionnement des freins, le type de wagons-citerne utilisés, la nature des produits transportés à travers villes et villages, leur dangerosité, le mauvais étiquetage des produits transportés, la vétusté des rails, les risques environnementaux et les déficiences dans la règlementation fédérale sur ce type de transport. L’auteur estime que des leçons importantes devront être tirées à la lumière de ce tragique événement.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssurances et gestion des risquesSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207