{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023137697516930022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001693002257336343, 'mean_word_length': 5.591078066914498, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Study of Risk Relevance Reasoning Based on a Context Ontology of Railway Accidents

With the application of risk management and accident response in the railway domain, risk detection and prevention have become key research topics. Many dangers and associated risk sources must be considered in collaborative scenarios of heavy‐haul railways. In these scenarios, (1) various risk sources are involved in different data sources, and context affects their occurrence, (2) the relationships between contexts and risk sources in the accident cause mechanism need to be explicitly defined, and (3) risk knowledge reasoning needs to integrate knowledge from multiple data sources to achieve comprehensive results. To express the association rules among core concepts, this article constructs two ontologies: The accident‐risk ontology and the context ontology. Concept analysis is based on railway domain knowledge and accident analysis reports. To sustainably integrate knowledge, an integrated evolutionary model called scenario‐risk‐accident chain ontology (SRAC) is constructed by introducing new data sources. The SRAC is integrated through expert rules between the two ontologies, and its evolution process involves new knowledge through a new risk source database. After three versions of the upgrade process, potential risk sources can be mined and evaluated in specific contexts. To evaluate the risk source level, a long short‐term memory (LSTM) neural network model is used to capture context and risk text features. A model comparison for different neural network structures is performed to find the optimal evaluation results. Finally, new concepts, such as risk source level, and new instances are updated in the context‐aware risk knowledge reasoning framework.