Criteria and Rationale for Decision Making in Aquatic Hazard Evaluation (Third Draft)

2009 ◽  
pp. 241-241-33
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hazard Evaluation

scholarly journals Risk Assessment of a Cryogenic Globe Valve by Using Combined Group Decision and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Yi Lu ◽  
Jianming Zheng ◽  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Gang Ren
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Low Temperature ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Criticality Analysis

When using the risk priority number method to perform a criticality analysis of the failure modes of mechanical products, different subjective factors exist on the part of experts regarding the severity level (S), occurrence probability level (O), and failure modes. The estimation of the detection difficulty level (D) is different, which causes the problem of inaccurate evaluation of the criticality of failure modes. This study proposes a harm analysis method that combines group decision-making and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. The similarity and difference between an individual expert and the group are used in group decision-making to assign the weight of the expert, thus reducing the influence of subjective factors on the evaluation results. On the basis of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, the weight of three risk elements (S, O, and D) is determined, and a hazard ranking of the interval obtained by group decision-making is performed. The CA (criticality analysis) improvement method is used to analyze the hazard posed by low-temperature shut-off valves. Results indicate that this method can effectively assess the weak links of the low-temperature shut-off valves and improve the accuracy of the hazard evaluation in comparison with the risk priority coefficient method.

scholarly journals Theoretical Aspects of Erroneous Actions During the Process of Decision Making by Air Traffic Control

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silva Andersone ◽  
Lauris Miķelsons ◽  
Ibrahim Arandas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Traffic Control ◽  
Air Traffic Control ◽  
Dynamic Environment ◽  
Air Traffic ◽  
Operating Conditions ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Flight Crew ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Operational Decision Making

Abstract The Theoretical Aspects of Erroneous Actions During the Process of Decision Making by Air Traffic Control evaluates the factors affecting the operational decision-making of a human air traffic controller, interacting in a dynamic environment with the flight crew, surrounding aircraft traffic and environmental conditions of the airspace. This article reviews the challenges of air traffic control in different conditions, ranging from normal and complex to emergency and catastrophic. Workload factors and operating conditions make an impact on air traffic controllers’ decision-making. The proposed model compares various operating conditions within an assumed air traffic control environment subsequently comparing them against a theoretically “perfect” air traffic control system. A mathematical model of flight safety assessment has been proposed for the quantitative assessment of various hazards arising during the process of Air Traffic Control. The model assumes events of various severity and probability ranging from high frequency and low severity up to less likely and catastrophic ones. Certain limitations of the model have been recognised and further improvements for effective hazard evaluation have been suggested.

scholarly journals A tiered approach to prioritizing registered pesticides for potential cancer hazard evaluations: implications for decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela J. Schwingl ◽  
Ruth M. Lunn ◽  
Suril S. Mehta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Human Cancer ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Evidence Mapping ◽  
Tiered Approach ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Cancer Studies

Abstract Background Over 800 pesticides are registered for use in the United States. Human studies indicate concern that some pesticides currently in use in large quantities may also pose a carcinogenic hazard. Our objective is to identify candidates for future hazard evaluations among pesticides used in high volumes in the United States and also classified as potential carcinogens by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). We also identify data gaps where further research is needed. Methods We used a systematic, two-tiered review approach to prioritize pesticides. First, we identified currently registered pesticides classified by USEPA as “possible”, “suggestive”, or “likely” human carcinogens. Among these, we selected pesticides USEPA has listed as commonly used by volume in at least one sector (agriculture, home and garden, or industry, commercial, and/or government), and those without a published hazard evaluation in the past 5 years. Second, we searched primary literature databases for peer-reviewed human cancer studies reporting pesticide-specific data published since the last USEPA carcinogenicity evaluation for each pesticide, and created evidence maps of the number of studies meeting our criteria for each identified pesticide. No evaluation of study results or risk-of-bias assessments were conducted. Results We identified 18 pesticides meeting our selection criteria, 16 pesticides had information from human cancer studies published after their initial carcinogenicity review. Of these, eight pesticides had at least three studies for one or more cancer sites: carbaryl, dichloropropene, dimethoate, mancozeb, metolachlor, pendimethalin, permethrin, and trifluralin. A major limitation in the literature revealed a shortage of studies reporting risk estimates for individual pesticides, rather pesticides were grouped by chemical class. Conclusions Our scoping report provides a map of the existing literature on real-world exposures and human cancer that has accumulated on pesticides classified as potential carcinogens by USEPA and used in high volumes. We also illustrate that several pesticides which are “data-rich” may warrant updated authoritative hazard evaluations. Our two-tiered approach and utilization of evidence mapping can be used to inform future decision-making to update cancer hazard evaluations.

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

The primacy of conscious decision making – ERRATUM

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conscious Decision

The primacy of conscious decision making – RETRACTION

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conscious Decision

Abstraction: An alternative neurocognitive account of recognition, prediction, and decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Trace Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽  
Abstract Representations ◽  
Technical Systems

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document