MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392736216 · doi:10.5505/jems.2017

Ship Engine Room Casualty Analysis by Using Decision Tree Method

2017· article· en· W4392736216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ömür Yaşar Saatçıoğlu, Burak Göksu, Onur Yüksel, Yiğit Gülmez

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTechnology and Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision treeTree (set theory)Computer scienceEngine roomAeronauticsOperations researchTransport engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematicsData miningMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ships may encounter undesirable conditions during operations. In consequence of a casualty, fire, explosion, flooding, grounding, injury even death may occur. Besides, these results can be avoidable with precautions and preventive operating processes. In maritime transportation, casualties depend on various factors. These were listed as misuse of the engine equipment and tools, defective machinery or equipment, inadequacy of operational procedure and measure of safety and force majeure effects. Casualty reports which were published in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Canada and United States until 2015 were examined and the probable causes and consequences of casualties were determined with their occurrence percentages. In this study, 89 marine investigation reports regarding engine room casualties were analyzed. Casualty factors were analyzed with their frequency percentages and also their main causes were constructed. This study aims to investigate engine room based casualties, frequency of each casualty type and main causes by using decision tree method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicTechnology and Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207