Emergency Capability Evaluation of Port-Adjacent Oil Storage and Transportation Bases: An Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large-scale storage and stable supply of oil products are essential for national energy security and economic development. As the economy expands and energy demands rise, centralized storage and supply systems become increasingly vital for ensuring the efficiency and reliability of oil product distribution. However, large oil storage depots present substantial safety risks. In the event of fires, explosions, or other accidents, emergency response efforts face stringent demands and challenges. To enhance the emergency response capabilities of oil storage and transportation bases (OSTBs), this paper proposes an innovative approach that integrates the improved analytic hierarchy process (IAHP) with the Entropy Weight Method (EMW) to determine the combined weights of various indices. This approach reduces the subjective bias associated with the traditional analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The emergency response capabilities of OSTBs are subsequently evaluated through fuzzy comprehensive analysis. An empirical study conducted on an OSTB in the Zhoushan archipelago quantitatively assesses its emergency preparedness. The results show that the base excels in pre-incident prevention, demonstrates robust preparedness and response capabilities, and exhibits moderate recovery abilities after incidents. These findings provide a theoretical foundation for reducing the likelihood of accidents, enhancing emergency response efficiency, and mitigating the severity of consequences. Practical recommendations are also offered based on the results.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".