ArticleScientific reports2024
A decision-making model for blasting risk assessment in mines using FBWM and GRA methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A fuzzy based hybrid approach for risk assessment of anesthesiologists using OPA and EDAS methods.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigating the impact of situational awareness and resilience on occupational stress: a case study of nurses in medical and educational hospitals in Ahvaz.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to the extensive use of explosives, the failure to identify hazards and assess risks in blasting may lead to catastrophic consequences. However, classical risk assessment approaches are limited in their ability to address ambiguity and uncertainty, as well as in assigning weights to the criteria involved in the risk assessment process. This study employs a multi-criteria decision-making system to address these limitations and assess the risks associated with blasting. The proposed model integrates Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to prioritize risks and the Fuzzy Best-Worst Method (FBWM) to assign weights to the criteria critical to the risk assessment process. The findings indicated that "not using personal anti-static protection devices during blasting (R12)", "placing the explosive fuse near explosive materials (R15)", and "bringing explosive materials to the explosion site before completing drilling and blasting operations (R23)" were the most significant blasting risks, respectively. These risks stem from operational processes, human factors, and the working environment, thus requiring special attention. The weighting of the study criteria, including Consequence (C), Probability (P), and Exposure (E), revealed that the C criterion, with a final weight of 0.538, was the most influential in the risk assessment process. The P and E criteria, with weights of 0.294 and 0.167, respectively, ranked second and third in importance among the assessment criteria. To ensure the applicability and accuracy of the proposed method, a validation study comprising two distinct parts-sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis-was conducted. The results of these evaluations highlighted the appropriate and reliable performance of the proposed approach. This approach can assist decision-makers, managers, and risk analysts in more accurately identifying and assessing risks by addressing some of the limitations inherent in classical risk assessment methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.