PeerJ Computer Science (Jul 2024)
A hybrid approach based on k-means and SVM algorithms in selection of appropriate risk assessment methods for sectors
Abstract
Every work environment contains different types of risks and interactions between risks. Therefore, the method to be used when making a risk assessment is very important. When determining which risk assessment method (RAM) to use, there are many factors such as the types of risks in the work environment, the interactions of these risks with each other, and their distance from the employees. Although there are many RAMs available, there is no RAM that will suit all workplaces and which method to choose is the biggest question. There is no internationally accepted scale or trend on this subject. In the study, 26 sectors, 10 different RAMs and 10 criteria were determined. A hybrid approach has been designed to determine the most suitable RAMs for sectors by using k-means clustering and support vector machine (SVM) classification algorithms, which are machine learning (ML) algorithms. First, the data set was divided into subsets with the k-means algorithm. Then, the SVM algorithm was run on all subsets with different characteristics. Finally, the results of all subsets were combined to obtain the result of the entire dataset. Thus, instead of the threshold value determined for a single and large cluster affecting the entire cluster and being made mandatory for all of them, a flexible structure was created by determining separate threshold values for each sub-cluster according to their characteristics. In this way, machine support was provided by selecting the most suitable RAMs for the sectors and eliminating the administrative and software problems in the selection phase from the manpower. The first comparison result of the proposed method was found to be the hybrid method: 96.63%, k-means: 90.63 and SVM: 94.68%. In the second comparison made with five different ML algorithms, the results of the artificial neural networks (ANN): 87.44%, naive bayes (NB): 91.29%, decision trees (DT): 89.25%, random forest (RF): 81.23% and k-nearest neighbours (KNN): 85.43% were found.
Keywords
