CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148Risk and Safety AnalysisOccupational Health and Safety ResearchRisk Perception and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams

Goerlandt, Floris, Reniers, Genserik·2016·Safety Science
DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.001

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Abrahamsen, 2014, Safety oriented bubble diagrams vs. risk plots based on prediction intervals and strength-of-knowledge assessments. Which one to use as an alternative to risk matrices?, Int. J. Bus. Contin. Risk Manage., 5, 197, 10.1504/IJBCRM.2014.066159 · DOI
  2. Abrahamsen, 2011, Safety oriented bubble diagrams in project risk management, Int. J. Perform. Eng., 7, 91
  3. Ale, 2015, On the origin of PCDS – (probability consequence diagrams), Saf. Sci., 72, 229, 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.09.003 · DOI
  4. Amundrud, O., Aven, T., 2012. A practical guide on how to present and visualize the result of risk and vulnerability analyses in a societal safety and security context. In: Presented at the 11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference, Helsinki, Finland.
  5. Apostolakis, 1990, The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems, Science, 250, 1359, 10.1126/science.2255906 · DOI
  6. Aven, 2013, Practical implications of the new risk perspectives, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 115, 136, 10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.020 · DOI
  7. Aven, 2012, The risk concept—historical and recent development trends, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 99, 33, 10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Aven, 2011, Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96, 509, 10.1016/j.ress.2010.12.021 · DOI
  9. Aven, 2010, On how to define, understand and describe risk, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 95, 623, 10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.011 · DOI
  10. Aven, 2013, How to define and interpret a probability in a risk and safety setting, Saf. Sci., 51, 223, 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.005 · DOI
  11. Aven, 2011, Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96, 64, 10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001 · DOI
  12. Boone, 2010, NUSAP: a method to evaluate the quality of assumptions in quantitative microbial risk assessment, J. Risk Res., 13, 337, 10.1080/13669870903564574 · DOI
  13. Campbell, 2005, Determining overall risk, J. Risk Res., 8, 569, 10.1080/13669870500118329 · DOI
  14. Cox, 2008, What’s wrong with risk matrices?, Risk Anal., 28, 497, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Douglas, 2000, Inductive risk and values in science, Philos. Sci., 67, 559, 10.1086/392855 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Duijm, 2015, Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices, Saf. Sci., 76, 21, 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.014 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Fischhoff, 1995, Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process, Risk Anal., 15, 137, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. Flage, 2009, Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis (QRA), Reliab. Risk Anal. Theory Appl., 2, 9
  19. Flage, 2014, Concerns, challenges, and directions of development for the issue of representing uncertainty in risk assessment, Risk Anal., 34, 1196, 10.1111/risa.12247 · DOI
  20. Flage, R., Røed, W., 2012. A reflection on some practices in the use of risk matrices. In: Presented at the 11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 881–891.
  21. Franks, 2006, A simplified method for the estimation of individual risk, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 84, 101, 10.1205/psep.04287 · DOI
  22. Goerlandt, 2014, On the reliability and validity of ship–ship collision risk analysis in light of different perspectives on risk, Saf. Sci., 62, 348, 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.010 · DOI
  23. Goerlandt, 2015, Maritime transportation risk analysis: review and analysis in light of some foundational issues, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 138, 115, 10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.025 · DOI
  24. Goerlandt, 2015, A framework for risk analysis of maritime transportation systems: a case study for oil spill from tankers in a ship–ship collision, Saf. Sci., 76, 42, 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.009 · DOI
  25. Haugen, 2015, Perspectives on risk and the unforeseen, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 137, 1, 10.1016/j.ress.2014.12.009 · DOI
  26. Helton, 2011, Quantification of margins and uncertainties: alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96, 1034, 10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.013 · DOI
  27. Hubbard, 2010, Problems with scoring methods and ordinal scales in risk assessment, IBM J. Res. Dev., 54
  28. Johansen, 2015, Ambiguity in risk assessment, Saf. Sci., 80, 243, 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.028 · DOI
  29. Kaplan, 1997, The words of risk analysis, Risk Anal., 17, 407, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00881.x · DOI
  30. Kaplan, 1981, On the quantitative definition of risk, Risk Anal., 1, 11, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x · DOI · Paper page
  31. Kiureghian, 2009, Aleatory or epistemic? Does it measure?, Saf. Sci., 31, 105
  32. Kontovas, 2009, Formal safety assessment: a critical review, Mar. Technol., 46, 45
  33. Levine, 2012, Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically scales axes, J. Risk Res., 15, 209, 10.1080/13669877.2011.634514 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Levin, R., 2005. Uncertainty in Risk Assessment – Contents and Modes of Communication. Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
  35. Markowski, 2008, Fuzzy risk matrix, J. Hazard. Mater., 159, 152, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.055 · DOI
  36. McGill, 1978, Variations of box plots, Am. Stat., 32, 12, 10.1080/00031305.1978.10479236 · DOI
  37. Montewka, 2014, On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA), Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 127, 77, 10.1016/j.ress.2014.03.009 · DOI
  38. Mosleh, 1996, Uncertainty about probability: a reconciliation with the subjectivist viewpoint, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. – Part Syst. Hum., 26, 303, 10.1109/3468.487956 · DOI
  39. Murphy, 2011, Classification and moral evaluation of uncertainties in engineering modeling, Sci. Eng. Ethics, 17, 553, 10.1007/s11948-010-9242-2 · DOI
  40. Ni, 2010, Some extensions on risk matrix approach, Saf. Sci., 48, 1269, 10.1016/j.ssci.2010.04.005 · DOI
  41. Paté-Cornell, 1996, Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 54, 95, 10.1016/S0951-8320(96)00067-1 · DOI
  42. Pickering, 2010, Risk matrices: implied accuracy and false assumptions, J. Health Saf. Res. Pract., 2, 9
  43. Ruan, 2015, Risk matrix integrating risk attitudes based on utility theory, Risk Anal., 1437–1447, 35
  44. Rudner, 1953, The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments, Philos. Sci., 20, 1, 10.1086/287231 · DOI
  45. Smith, 2009, Risk matrix input data biases, Syst. Eng., 12, 344, 10.1002/sys.20126 · DOI
  46. Ståhlberg, 2013, Impact scenario models for probabilistic risk-based design for ship–ship collision, Mar. Struct., 33, 238, 10.1016/j.marstruc.2013.06.006 · DOI
  47. Steel, 2010, Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk, Philos. Sci., 77, 14, 10.1086/650206 · DOI
  48. Thomas, 2014, The risk of using risk matrices, SPE Econ. Manage., 56, 10.2118/166269-PA · DOI
  49. Watson, 1994, On the meaning of probability in probabilistic safety analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 45, 261, 10.1016/0951-8320(94)90142-2 · DOI
  50. Zio, E., Pedroni, N., 2013. Methods for Representing Uncertainty – A Literature Review (No. 2013-03), Cahiers de la Sécurité Industrielle. Fondation pour une Culture de Sécurité Industrielle, Toulouse, France.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Goerlandt, F., & Reniers, G.
Affiliations
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
Corresponding author
Goerlandt, Floris
ORCID
Venue
Safety Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
84
Pages
67-77
ISSN
0925-7535 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.001
OpenAlex
W2216314654
Cited by
148
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8
FWCI
27.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Safety Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • BONUS
  • European Union’s Seventh Programme
  • Academy of Finland
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Occupational Health and Safety Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
risk matrix, uncertainty representation, uncertainty communication, risk visualization, risk management, risk analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review