SAFETY BULLETIN TIS 2002-03 GLASS DOORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Be careful! What happened? Unsignaled reinforced glass. Signaled safety glass. A visitor recently hurt his leg when he walked into a glass door which shattered from the impact. This door was made of reinforced glass, a material which is inappropriate for this kind of use as it is too fragile. Indeed, it shatters into sharp splinters which can cause serious injury. Furthermore, the door was not easily visible (badly lit, no warning signs, ...). Corrective measures Just after the accident: glass doors were signed to make them more visible; replacement of dangerous glass panes planned for 2003. What preventive measures can be taken against this kind of accident? If you are in charge of projects and works: In the call for tender, specify the acceptable shock resistance level of the glass pane; Before the door is mounted, insist on receiving technical documentation and/or certificate of conformity from the supplier; If in doubt, ask advice from the TIS/GS safety inspector for your division. If you are a safety officer (DSO, TSO, safety linkman, ...): Signal doors which are not easily visible and which are located in a passage way; Inform the safety inspector for your division about any glass doors which could be dangerous (reinforced glass, large panes, ....); Report all accidents of this type, even minor ones, to the safety inspector for your division. For further information contact, in TIS,the safety inspector of your division.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.584 | 0.504 |
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".