RESUMEN

The Northern Sea Route (NSR) makes travel between Europe and Asia shorter and quicker than a southern transit via the Strait of Malacca and Suez Canal. It provides greater access to Arctic resources such as oil and gas. As global warming accelerates, melting Arctic ice caps are likely to increase traffic in the NSR and enhance its commercial viability. Due to the harsh Arctic environment imposing threats to the safety of ship navigation, it is necessary to assess Arctic navigation risk to maintain shipping safety. Currently, most studies are focused on the conventional assessment of the risk, which lacks the validation based on actual data. In this study, actual data about Arctic navigation environment and related expert judgments were used to generate a structured data set. Based on the structured data set, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and alternative methods were used to establish models for the assessment of Arctic navigation risk, which were validated using cross-validation. The results show that compared with alternative models, XGBoost models have the best performance in terms of mean absolute errors and root mean squared errors. The XGBoost models can learn and reproduce expert judgments and knowledge for the assessment of Arctic navigation risk. Feature importance (FI) and shapley additive explanations (SHAP) are used to further interpret the relationship between input data and predictions. The application of XGBoost, FI, and SHAP is aimed to improve the safety of Arctic shipping using advanced artificial intelligence techniques. The validated assessment enhances the quality and robustness of assessment.

RESUMEN

Occupational exposure assessment is important in preventing occupational coal worker's diseases. Methods have been proposed to assess compliance with exposure limits which aim to protect workers from developing diseases. A Bayesian framework with informative prior distribution obtained from historical or expert judgements has been highly recommended for compliance testing. The compliance testing is assessed against the occupational exposure limits (OEL) and categorization of the exposure, ranging from very highly controlled to very poorly controlled exposure groups. This study used a Bayesian framework from historical and expert elicitation data to compare the posterior probabilities of the 95th percentile (P95) of the coal dust exposures to improve compliance assessment and decision-making. A total of 10 job titles were included in this study. Bayesian framework with Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation was used to draw a full posterior probability of finding a job title to an exposure category. A modified IDEA ("Investigate", "Discuss", "Estimate", and "Aggregate") technique was used to conduct expert elicitation. The experts were asked to give their subjective probabilities of finding coal dust exposure of a job title in each of the exposure categories. Sensitivity analysis was done for parameter space to check for misclassification of exposures. There were more than 98% probabilities of the P95 exposure being found in the poorly controlled exposure group when using expert judgments. Historical data and non-informative prior tend to show a lower probability of finding the P95 in higher exposure categories in some titles unlike expert judgments. Expert judgements tend to show some similarity in findings with historical data. We recommend the use of expert judgements in occupational risk assessment as prior information before a decision is made on current exposure when historical data are unavailable or scarce.

Asunto(s)

Minas de Carbón , Enfermedades Profesionales , Exposición Profesional , Humanos , Teorema de Bayes , Carbón Mineral , Sudáfrica , Polvo/análisis

RESUMEN

Opinion polarization is increasingly becoming an issue in today's society, producing both unrest at the societal level, and conflict within small scale communications between people of opposite opinion. Often, opinion polarization is conceptualized as the direct opposite of agreement and consequently operationalized as an index of dispersion. However, in doing so, researchers fail to account for the bimodality that is characteristic of a polarized opinion distribution. A valid measurement of opinion polarization would enable us to predict when, and on what issues conflict may arise. The current study is aimed at developing and validating a new index of opinion polarization. The weights of this index were derived from utilizing the knowledge of 58 international experts on polarization through an expert survey. The resulting Opinion Polarization Index predicted expert polarization scores in opinion distributions better than common measures of polarization, such as the standard deviation, Van der Eijk's polarization measure and Esteban and Ray's polarization index. We reflect on the use of expert ratings for the development of measurements in this case, and more in general.