A comprehensive STPA-PSO framework for quantifying smart glasses risks in manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of cutting-edge technologies, such as wearables, in complex systems is crucial for enhancing collaboration between humans and machines in the era of Industry 5.0. However, this increased interaction also introduces new challenges and risks, including the potential for human errors. A thorough analysis of the literature reveals an absence of studies that have quantified these risks, underscoring the utmost importance of this research. To address the above gap, the present study introduces the STPA-PSO methodology, which aims to quantify the risks associated with the use of smart glasses in complex systems, with a specific focus on human error risks. The proposed methodology leverages the Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) approach to proactively identify hazards, while harnessing the power of the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm to accurately calculate and optimize risks, including those related to human errors. To validate the effectiveness of the methodology, a case study involving the assembly of a refrigerator was conducted, encompassing various critical aspects, such as the Industrial, Financial, and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) aspects. The results provide evidence of the efficacy of the STPA-PSO approach in assessing, quantifying, and managing risks during the design stage. By proposing a robust and comprehensive risk quantification framework, this study makes a significant contribution to the advancement of system safety analysis in complex environments, providing invaluable insights for the seamless integration of wearables and ensuring safer interactions between humans and machines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".