System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA): An Innovative Top-Down Hazard Assessment Method for Based on the System-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) - A Bibliometric Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire collection of documents published on the development and utilization of STAMP/STPA over the past decade. To achieve this, we have followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, which serves as a recognized standard for systematic literature reviews in data collection. The study involved nineteen papers devoted to this subject matter, systematically retrieved from the online database Scopus. The findings indicated the need to integrate STAMP/STPA with other systemic safety assessment approaches to create a comprehensive Integrated Decision-Making Framework for Industrial Asset Management. This framework would be instrumental in assessing and managing emerging technology risks, as well as addressing extreme, rare, and disruptive events. Further research would validate its efficiency and practicality. Therefore, future research initiatives will be devoted to conducting case studies in order to obtain more accurate data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.121 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it