A novel approach for predicting Lockout/Tagout safety procedures for smart maintenance strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an approach for predicting Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) procedure sheets, which are commonly used in the manufacturing industry to prevent premature equipment restart during maintenance. The prediction problem of energetic devices to lock from machine names is regarded as a multi-task classification problem. The dataset was obtained by processing LOTO sheets in Portable Document Format (PDF). The K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN), Random Forest (RF), and Deep Neural Network (DNN) algorithms were compared for this problem. The best prediction performance was achieved with the DNN method, with top-1 accuracies exceeding 63% and top-2 accuracies exceeding 90% for all devices. The sensitivity analysis conducted on the results indicates that the approach is robust and reliable, regardless of the industrial sector considered. In other words, the approach is not significantly affected by variations in the industry or its specific characteristics. These results suggest that the proposed approach can be used to assist workers in drafting LOTO sheets, and offers strong potential for concrete applications in safety management in the era of smart manufacturing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".