An Expert Approach to Assessing Technogenic Risk at Enrichment Plants
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 article presents a methodological approach to the assessment of technogenic risk based on expert assessments in the processing plants of Central Kazakhstan.During the expert study, the criteria were determined by which the composition of the expert group was formed, and special linguistic scales were developed to carry out the procedure for assessing risk indicators by experts.Expert studies were conducted on 10 possible types of accidents at enrichment plants in Central Kazakhstan.The assessment of the consistency of expert opinions was carried out using the Kendall concordance coefficient.As a new approach for assessing technogenic risk, technical and ecological criteria were identified and their influence on the probability and consequences of accidents was assessed.These parameters formed the basis for multifactorial mathematical models of hazard indicators and the severity of the consequences of an accident during ore processing and enrichment.Scales have been developed to assess the hazard and severity of accidents, a risk assessment matrix, as well as a description of accident risk levels.Corrective measures for enrichment plants have been proposed.This technique is applicable to various production processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it