Identifying design criteria for implementing inherent safety in chemical process industries part 1: Design reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recurrence of similar accidents is evidenced by past accidents, which show that accidents are not decreasing globally. It is recommended to implement the concept of inherent safety design (ISD) in the chemical process industry as a component of accident prevention strategies. This study aims to identify potential indicators of ISD for each inherent safety (IS) keyword, which will be referred to later as design reasoning (DR), based on 529 selected cases that suggest design changes that enhance the safety of processes, materials, or equipment. The cases were collected from accident cases, IS handbooks, chemical engineering journals, new product brochures, and chemical engineering magazines. The cases have to demonstrate that the new design is safer than the previous design. The design changes were evaluated to extract the corrective action and determine the common strategy employed. This information was then interpreted as DR. The collected DR were subsequently categorized and measured in terms of frequency according to IS keywords. From the statistical analysis, the highest percentage of DR is improve mixing (18%) which accounted from 95 out of 529 cases. The second is loose proximity (15.5%) and the third is fewer equipment (14.9%). For the IS keyword ranking, it can be summarized that: moderation (40%) >minimization (27%) >simplification (21%) >substitution (12%). Results showed that moderation inherent safety is a popular strategy used to implement IS. The findings serve as a valuable reference for designers or engineer attempting to implement ISD in their design task.
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 | 0.025 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".