MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7102645109 · doi:10.48130/emst-0025-0016

Integrated fuzzy fault tree-Bayesian network modeling for rollover risk assessment of LNG road tankers

2025· article· en· W7102645109 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Management Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsBayesian networkFault tree analysisRollover (web design)Probabilistic logicFuzzy logicHazardRisk assessmentProbabilistic risk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) road tanker rollover accidents, though infrequent, often lead to catastrophic consequences. Quantitative risk assessment is significantly challenged by the scarcity of probabilistic data specific to these complex, low-frequency events. To address this data limitation and enhance assessment accuracy, this study develops an integrated fuzzy fault tree-Bayesian network (FFT-BN) methodology. Fuzzy set theory is applied, leveraging multi-source general traffic accident statistics and expert judgment, to quantify the occurrence probabilities of basic causal factors under uncertainty. A Bayesian network is then constructed from the fault tree structure to enable comprehensive probabilistic inference. Critical risk factors were rigorously identified using multiple importance measures (ROV, BIM, RRW). The analysis consistently pinpointed poor road alignment and the absence of critical traffic facilities as the two paramount contributors. Crucially, vehicle speed management emerged as the central mitigation mechanism linking these factors; controlling speed effectively counters the destabilizing effects of poor alignment and compensates for the lack of timely hazard perception. The results demonstrate that implementing targeted speed control measures on identified high-risk road sections is essential for reducing the probability of LNG tanker rollovers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Management Science and TechnologySame topicMaritime Navigation and SafetyFrench-language works237,207