MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390412443 · doi:10.17580/em.2023.02.09

Application of case-based reasoning in hazard evaluation in complex process flow control

2023· article· en· W4390412443 on OpenAlex
V. B. Trofimov, Igor Temkin, S. V. Solodov

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEurasian Mining · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsAdidas (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceHazardHazard analysisControl (management)Artificial intelligenceReliability engineeringEngineeringChemistryProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses the Case-Based Reasoning method which enables solving new problems that may arise during decision-making by using or adapting solutions of the similar known problems on the basis of accumulated data and knowledge on past situations or cases contained in a knowledge base. The metrics of similarity between the parameters of a current situation and previous cases, and the methods to retrieve and adapt the cases are described. The case information model used for the process management is presented and exemplified. The conditions and ranges of efficient case-based reasoning application in the socio-technical system control in case of nonstationary, nonlinear and sluggish processes are discussed. The authors propose the procedure for searching similar cases using the classical metrics and the Random Forest method, and describe the generalized control of a complex process or an object using the concepts of the industrial internet of things and the case-based reasoning.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.305 · 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