A risk‐based fuzzy arithmetic model to determine safety integrity levels considering individual and societal risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Risk‐based techniques such as risk graph and Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) are used to determine the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) of safety instrumented functions to ensure that risk is reduced to a tolerable level. However, these techniques have some drawbacks. For instance, they need absolute and precise numbers to evaluate SIL parameters, which are rarely available or are highly uncertain. In addition, they are incapable of considering individual and societal risks simultaneously. Moreover, risk tolerance criteria are likely to be used incorrectly in the LOPA technique, and risk graph is difficult to calibrate. In the current paper, a novel comprehensive fuzzy arithmetic model has been developed to determine the required SILs in process industries. The fuzzy required Risk Reduction Factor (RRF) is calculated for both individual and societal risks. Fuzzy numbers are developed from crisp intervals, based on the expected interval of the fuzzy numbers. Expert fuzzy‐scaled elicitation has been applied to obtain the SIL parameters. In the proposed model, the overall risk tolerance criterion and apportionment factor are defined as SIL parameters for both individual and societal risks to ensure that the applied risk criteria are compliant with the requirements of the system. In addition, an approach is introduced for determining the required SIL based on the fuzzy required RRF. The proposed methodology was demonstrated to alleviate the limitations, and thus, can be considered as a more precise alternative to the conventional methods.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".