Dynamic scenario deduction analysis for hazardous chemical accident based on <scp>CNN‐LSTM</scp> model with attention mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evolution of hazardous chemical accidents (HCAs) is characterized by uncertainty and complexity. It is challenging for decision‐makers to expeditiously adapt emergency response plans in response to dynamically changing scenario states. This study proposes a data‐driven methodology for constructing accident scenarios and develops a novel hybrid deep learning model for scenario deduction analysis. This model aids in accurately predicting the evolution of HCAs, enabling emergency responders to prepare and implement targeted interventions proactively. First, a framework for constructing an accident scenario database is presented, based on the time‐sequential characteristics of accident progression. This framework employs a data‐driven approach to describe the evolution process of accident scenarios. Second, a deep learning model (CNN‐LSTM‐Attention) that integrates convolutional neural network (CNN), long short‐term memory (LSTM), and attention mechanism (AM) is developed for accident scenario deduction analysis. Finally, to illustrate practical application, a scenario database for HCAs is established. A major HCA case study is conducted to demonstrate the ability of this model to analyze various scenarios, thereby improving emergency decision‐making efficiency. Compared with algorithms such as CNN, LSTM, and CNN‐LSTM, the prediction accuracy of this method ranges from 86% to 93%, signifying an improvement of over 7%. This work provides a reliable framework for supporting decision‐making in emergency management.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".