Use of HFACS and fault tree model for collision risk factors analysis of icebreaker assistance in ice-covered waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the global warming and a large amount of sea ice melting, the available Arctic Sea Route has greatly enhanced the value of Arctic shipping. Ship operations under icebreaker assistance have become an essential way to facilitate the safe navigation of merchant vessels sailing through the Arctic Sea Route in ice-covered waters, but they can also put the crew and the ship in danger caused by a possible collision between the assisted ship and the icebreaker. In this paper, a dedicated Human and Organizational Factors (HoFs) model of ship collision accidents between an assisted ship and an icebreaker is developed and analyzed with the aim to identify and classify collision risk factors. First, a modified model of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) for collision accidents between a ship and an icebreaker in ice-covered waters is proposed, which helps to analyze ship collision reports. Then, a Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) model is utilized to analyze the fundamental collision risk factors according to the statistical analysis of accident reports and expert judgments based on the HFACS-SIBCI model. Finally, qualitative analysis is carried out to analyze collision risk factors under icebreaker assistance, where Risk Control Options (RCOs) are formulated. An important guidance for the risk control of ship collisions during icebreaker assistance in ice-covered waters is provided for lawmakers and shipping companies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".