Security assessment method and device, electronic equipment and readable storage medium

Abstract

The embodiment of the invention provides a safety assessment method and device, electronic equipment and a readable storage medium, and the method comprises the steps: employing a safety assessment model for any responsibility subject in a to-be-assessed region, and carrying out the safety assessment of the responsibility subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsibility subject, and obtaining a safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject; based on the security risk scores and the real-time dynamic risk scores corresponding to the at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-assessed region, determining a region score corresponding to the to-be-assessed region; and when the region score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold, performing security risk disposal on the to-be-assessed region. The regional score is determined based on the safety risk scores of the at least two responsibility subjects and the real-time dynamic risk score, the overall safety condition of the to-be-evaluated region can be reflected more scientifically and comprehensively, and when the regional score is smaller than or equal to the preset score threshold value, targeted treatment measures are taken in time, so that the efficiency and normalization of safety management are improved.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of gas safety, and in particular to a safety evaluation method and device, an electronic device and a readable storage medium. BACKGROUND

[0002] With the acceleration of urbanization process, gas as an important energy is widely used in the fields of resident life, commercial operation and industrial production, and the coverage of gas facilities is increasingly expanding, and the gas system in the region becomes more and more complex. However, the current gas safety management faces many severe challenges.

[0003] In the related art, the existing safety evaluation method is often rough, and only limited data and experience are used for judgment, which is difficult to comprehensively and objectively reflect the real situation of regional gas safety, so that the relevant management departments and enterprises are difficult to master the real-time and comprehensive gas safety state in the region and cannot accurately evaluate the gas safety situation in the region. This not only affects the effect of gas safety management, but also makes it difficult to discover and dispose of potential safety hazards in time. SUMMARY

[0004] In order to overcome the problems in the related art, the present application provides a safety evaluation method, device, electronic device and readable storage medium.

[0005] In a first aspect, the present application provides a safety evaluation method, which comprises:

[0006] For any responsible subject in the to-be-evaluated region, a safety evaluation model is used to evaluate the safety of the responsible subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsible subject, and obtain the safety risk score corresponding to the responsible subject;

[0007] Based on the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsible subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score, the regional score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is determined;

[0008] In the case where the regional score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold, the safety risk of the to-be-evaluated region is disposed.

[0009] Optionally, the safety risk score is obtained based on the evaluation index score corresponding to the at least two evaluation indexes; the method further comprises:

[0010] For any evaluation index, in the case where the evaluation index score corresponding to the evaluation index is less than an index warning value, the evaluation index is determined as a weak item corresponding to the responsible subject.

[0011] Optionally, the method further comprises:

[0012] In a case where the security risk score corresponding to the subject is less than a risk threshold corresponding to the subject or the number of evaluation indexes whose evaluation index scores are less than index early warning values is greater than a preset number threshold, the subject is determined as a weak subject.

[0013] Optionally, the weak subject includes a weak enterprise and a weak user; and the method further includes:

[0014] obtaining a number of enterprises corresponding to the weak enterprise and a number of users corresponding to the weak user in the to-be-evaluated region;

[0015] In a case where a ratio of the number of enterprises to a total number of enterprises corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is greater than or equal to a first ratio, or a ratio of the number of users to a total number of users corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is greater than or equal to a second ratio, the to-be-evaluated region is determined as a weak region.

[0016] Optionally, the method further includes:

[0017] For any evaluation index, a target subject associated with the evaluation index is determined;

[0018] In a case where evaluation index scores of the target subjects with respect to the evaluation index are all greater than an index early warning value, the evaluation index is determined as a weak link of gas safety risk.

[0019] Optionally, the method further includes:

[0020] For any subject, a corresponding evaluation dimension label is set for each evaluation index corresponding to the subject;

[0021] For any evaluation dimension label, an evaluation index score corresponding to each evaluation index associated with the evaluation dimension label is calculated, to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label.

[0022] In a second aspect, the present application provides a safety evaluation device, which includes:

[0023] a first evaluation module, configured to, for any subject in a to-be-evaluated region, perform safety evaluation on the subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the subject by using a safety evaluation model, to obtain a security risk score corresponding to the subject;

[0024] a first determination module, configured to determine a region score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region based on the security risk scores corresponding to at least two subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and real-time dynamic risk scores;

[0025] The first processing module is configured to perform a security risk processing on the region to be evaluated if the region score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold.

[0026] Optionally, the security risk score is obtained based on the evaluation indicator scores corresponding to the at least two evaluation indicators; and the device further comprises:

[0027] The second determining module is configured to determine, for any evaluation indicator, the evaluation indicator as a weak item corresponding to the responsible subject if the evaluation indicator score corresponding to the evaluation indicator is less than an indicator early warning value.

[0028] Optionally, the device further comprises:

[0029] The third determining module is configured to determine the responsible subject as a weak subject if the security risk score corresponding to the responsible subject is less than a risk threshold corresponding to the responsible subject or the number of evaluation indicators whose evaluation indicator scores are less than an indicator early warning value is greater than a preset number threshold.

[0030] Optionally, the weak subject comprises a weak enterprise and a weak user; and the device further comprises:

[0031] The first obtaining module is configured to obtain a number of enterprises corresponding to weak enterprises in the region to be evaluated and a number of users corresponding to weak users;

[0032] The fourth determining module is configured to determine the region to be evaluated as a weak region if a ratio of the number of enterprises to a total number of enterprises corresponding to the region to be evaluated is greater than or equal to a first ratio or a ratio of the number of users to a total number of users corresponding to the region to be evaluated is greater than or equal to a second ratio.

[0033] Optionally, the device further comprises:

[0034] The fifth determining module is configured to determine, for any evaluation indicator, a target responsible subject associated with the evaluation indicator.

[0035] The sixth determining module is configured to determine the evaluation indicator as a weak link of gas safety risk if the evaluation indicator scores of the target responsible subjects with respect to the evaluation indicator are all greater than an indicator early warning value.

[0036] Optionally, the device further comprises:

[0037] The first setting module is configured to set, for any responsible subject, an evaluation dimension label corresponding to each evaluation indicator corresponding to the responsible subject.

[0038] The first calculation module is configured to calculate, for any evaluation dimension label, an evaluation index score corresponding to each evaluation index associated with the evaluation dimension label, to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label.

[0039] In a third aspect, the present application provides an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor implements the safety evaluation method of any one of the first aspect when executing the program.

[0040] In a fourth aspect, the present application provides a readable storage medium, when the instructions in the storage medium are executed by the processor of an electronic device, the electronic device can execute the steps in the safety evaluation method of any one of the first aspect.

[0041] In the embodiments of the present application, for any responsibility subject in the to-be-evaluated region, a safety evaluation model is used to perform safety evaluation on the responsibility subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsibility subject, to obtain a safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject; and based on the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score, a region score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is determined. In the case where the region score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold, safety risk disposal is performed on the to-be-evaluated region. In this way, the safety risk score is obtained by performing safety evaluation on the responsibility subject in the to-be-evaluated region, which helps to deeply mine the safety hidden dangers existing in each responsibility subject and avoid risk omission due to incomplete evaluation. Then, the region score is determined by comprehensively considering the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score, which can more scientifically and comprehensively reflect the overall safety situation of the to-be-evaluated region, and then when the region score is less than or equal to the preset score threshold, timely targeted disposal measures are taken, the possibility of safety accidents is effectively reduced, the efficiency and standardization of safety management are improved, and a strong guarantee is provided for the safe and stable operation of the to-be-evaluated region. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0042] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application or the prior art, the following will briefly introduce the drawings needed to be used in the embodiments or the prior art description. Obviously, the drawings in the following description are some embodiments of the present application, and for those skilled in the art, other drawings can also be obtained without creative labor.

[0043] Figure 1 is a step flowchart of a safety evaluation method provided by the embodiments of the present application;

[0044] Figure 2is a structural diagram of a safety evaluation device provided by an embodiment of the present application.

[0045] Figure 3 is a structural diagram of an electronic device provided by an embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0046] The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the drawings in the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the described embodiments are some but not all of the embodiments of the present application. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by a person of ordinary skill in the art without creative work fall within the protection scope of the present application.

[0047] Figure 1 is a step flow chart of a safety evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present application, as shown in the figure, the method can include: Figure 1

[0048] Step 101, for any responsibility subject in the to-be-evaluated region, a safety evaluation model is used to respectively evaluate the safety of the responsibility subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsibility subject, and obtain a safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject.

[0049] In the embodiments of the present application, a safety evaluation model is constructed in advance, and the safety evaluation model can be constructed based on big data analysis, machine learning algorithm and multi-field safety evaluation theory. Various responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region are included in the evaluation category, wherein the to-be-evaluated region can be an administrative region that can be independently evaluated, such as a province, a city, a district or a county, or a region divided according to actual safety management needs. The responsibility subjects include but are not limited to enterprises, regulatory agencies and user groups. For each responsibility subject, a specific safety evaluation model corresponding to each responsibility subject can be used. Different safety evaluation models can be customized and designed according to the business characteristics, functional scope and safety risk characteristics of different responsibility subjects, so as to ensure the accuracy and pertinence of the evaluation results.

[0050] For each responsibility subject, at least two evaluation indexes and evaluation standards corresponding to each evaluation index can be set for each responsibility subject. The evaluation indexes are used to describe the safety status of the responsibility subject from different dimensions, and specifically cover multiple levels such as enterprise side, regulatory agency side and user side. The evaluation standards are used to quantify the safety status of the evaluation indexes. Based on the evaluation standards, the evaluation index scores corresponding to the evaluation indexes can be obtained. Different responsibility subjects can correspond to different sets of evaluation indexes, and different evaluation standards can be set for the evaluation indexes corresponding to each responsibility subject in combination with the actual safety comprehensive status of the responsibility subject.

[0051] ​When the responsible party is an enterprise, the evaluation indicators may include but are not limited to the degree of perfection of the enterprise's safety management system, the effectiveness of safety technical protection measures, the emergency response capabilities for safety incidents, and the level of safety awareness of employees. The evaluation indicators corresponding to the enterprise are used to comprehensively evaluate the safety management level and safety assurance capabilities of the enterprise in its daily operations. When the responsible party is a regulatory agency, the evaluation indicators may include but are not limited to the implementation of safety supervision policies, the investment of safety supervision resources, the efficiency of safety supervision, and the implementation of safety publicity and education work. The evaluation indicators corresponding to the regulatory agency are used to reflect the performance of the regulatory agency's duties and the effectiveness of its supervision in maintaining regional safety. When the responsible party is a user, the evaluation indicators may include but are not limited to the user's safe usage habits, safety awareness, and the ability to respond to safety incidents. The evaluation indicators corresponding to the user are used to reflect the user's initiative and ability level in ensuring their own safety.

[0052] For example, when the responsible party is an enterprise, the evaluation indicators may include the online rate of plant stations, reporting of residential user security inspection data, authenticity of residential user security inspection data, timely rectification of (major hidden dangers) hidden dangers, timely rectification of (general hidden dangers) hidden dangers, whether the Internet of Things alarm is handled in a timely manner, etc. Accordingly, the evaluation standard for the online rate of plant stations can be set as "no points will be deducted if the daily average online rate reaches 80%, and 5 points will be deducted for each percentage point of offline rate if the online rate is lower than 80%"; the evaluation standard for reporting residential user security inspection data can be set as "if no residential user home security inspection record is reported during the evaluation period, 100% points will be deducted"; the evaluation standard for the authenticity of residential user security inspection data can be set as "if the platform data is inconsistent with the enterprise data, 100% will be deducted"; the evaluation standard for timely rectification of (major hidden dangers) hidden dangers can be set as "major hidden dangers will be rectified within the specified time limit within the evaluation period, no points will be added or subtracted, 100% points will be deducted for each major hidden danger that has not been rectified beyond the deadline, and 50% points will be deducted for each major hidden danger that has been rectified beyond the deadline";

[0053] (General hidden dangers) The evaluation criteria for timely rectification of hidden dangers can be set as "general hidden dangers rectified within the prescribed time limit during the evaluation period will not be added or subtracted, 50% of the points will be deducted for each general hidden danger that has not been rectified beyond the time limit, and 20% of the points will be deducted for each general hidden danger that has been rectified beyond the time limit"; the evaluation criteria for whether the IoT alarm is handled in a timely manner can be set as "for IoT alarm data under the evaluation object, within the current evaluation period, for each IoT alarm that has been handled overdue (regardless of whether it has been handled), 10%, 20%, and 30% of the points will be deducted according to the alarm level of low, medium, and high respectively". It can be understood that the score of each evaluation indicator can be determined by automatically calculating the score based on the acquired data. At the same time, in order to further ensure the accuracy of the score, manual scoring can be used to determine the score. The embodiment of the present invention does not limit this.

[0054] Based on the multi-dimensional evaluation index system set for different responsible subjects, the safety of each responsible subject is evaluated by using a safety evaluation model. In the evaluation process, first, various data related to the responsible subject are collected, including but not limited to safety management system documents, safety technical protection measures implementation records, safety event emergency handling reports, employee safety training records, safety supervision policy implementation reports, safety propaganda and education materials, and user safety use behavior data, etc. For example, data can be obtained by entering enterprise data, such as enterprise users logging in to the enterprise end of the supervision platform and actively entering relevant data of the enterprise. Or data can be obtained by obtaining daily operation and maintenance data, such as enterprises can use and run through their own enterprise operation platform, and access enterprise operation data to the supervision platform through a unified standard interface to obtain the above data. For the data of the supervision agency side, the relevant data can be obtained from the daily behavior log of the supervision platform by the supervision agency.

[0055] For example, for the case where the responsible subject is an enterprise, the collected data can include enterprise self-checking hazard data, home security inspection data, pipeline patrol data, plant and station inspection data, and enterprise industry base data. Among them, the self-checking hazard data is used to calculate the score of the hazard rectification and timely evaluation index, the home security inspection data is used to calculate the score of the home security inspection compliance rate evaluation index, the pipeline patrol data is used to calculate the score of the pipeline inspection compliance evaluation index, the plant and station inspection data is used to calculate the score of the plant and station inspection compliance evaluation index, and the enterprise industry base data is used to calculate the score of the base reporting timely situation.

[0056] For the case where the responsible subject is a supervision agency, the collected data can include supervision agency inspection data, supervision agency statistical yearbook data, and supervision agency supervision responsibility data. Among them, the supervision agency inspection data is used to calculate the hazard rectification and timely evaluation item, the supervision agency statistical yearbook data is used to calculate the base reporting timely situation evaluation item, and the supervision agency supervision responsibility data is used to calculate the supervision agency supervision responsibility situation evaluation item.

[0057] For the case where the responsible subject is a user, the collected data can include the enterprise's home security inspection record, including home state, security inspection result (whether there is a user-side hazard), etc.

[0058] The data analysis algorithm and evaluation model in the safety evaluation model are used to process and analyze the collected data, and the score corresponding to each evaluation index is calculated. For example, the final score can be calculated according to the evaluation standard corresponding to the evaluation index by automatic calculation, and the final evaluation index score is converted by the safety evaluation model.

[0059] Finally, the scores of the evaluation indexes are weighted and summed according to the weight distribution of each evaluation index to obtain the safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject. The safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject comprehensively reflects the safety condition of the responsibility subject in multiple dimensions, and provides an important basis for subsequent safety risk management and decision-making. By comparing and analyzing the safety risk scores of different responsibility subjects, the weak links and potential risk points in the region can be identified, which provides strong support for formulating targeted safety improvement measures.

[0060] Step 102, determining the region score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region based on the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score.

[0061] In the embodiment of the application, when determining the region score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region, the region score is based on multiple scores. Specifically, it includes the safety risk scores corresponding to each responsibility subject in the region, such as the safety risk score of the gas enterprise in the region, the safety risk score of the gas user in the region, the safety risk score of the regional regulatory agency, and the real-time dynamic risk score.

[0062] The real-time dynamic risk score can be realized in a specific way, which relies on the software platform carried by the safety evaluation model and obtains relevant data and calculates the score by means of other business modules without periodic properties. The real-time dynamic risk score is used to reflect the sudden change of safety risk in the region. The business module without periodic properties can be the Internet of Things alarm module. Taking the Internet of Things alarm module as an example, the module will monitor and calculate the Internet of Things alarm unhandled data from each region in real time. When there is Internet of Things alarm unhandled data in a region, it means that there may be potential risks in the region in terms of gas safety, and the real-time dynamic risk evaluation score of the corresponding region will be increased accordingly. This is because the unhandled Internet of Things alarm may imply that the security loophole or hidden danger has not been handled in time, which increases the possibility of safety accidents. When the Internet of Things alarm is handled, it means that the security hidden danger in the region has been timely eliminated, and the risk degree is reduced, so the real-time dynamic risk score of the corresponding region will also be reduced. By considering the real-time dynamic risk score in the calculation of the region score, this dynamic adjustment mechanism can more accurately reflect the change of the region gas safety condition in real time, so that the region score is more in line with the actual situation, and has timeliness and accuracy.

[0063] The regional score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is determined comprehensively based on the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score. The safety risk scores corresponding to the at least two responsibility subjects cover the risk evaluation results of different responsibility subjects such as gas enterprises, gas users, and regulatory agencies in the region in terms of gas safety management and use. The safety risk scores reflect the performance and potential risk degree of the responsibility subjects in terms of gas safety.

[0064] In determining the regional score, the safety risk scores corresponding to the at least two responsibility subjects and the real-time dynamic risk score can be further corrected based on weights. The safety risk scores corresponding to the different responsibility subjects and the real-time dynamic risk score are assigned weights. The weight assignment can be determined according to the importance and influence of each part score in reflecting the regional gas safety condition. For example, if the gas enterprises in the region play a key role in gas safety management, the safety risk condition of the gas enterprises has a greater impact on the overall safety of the region, and thus the evaluation result score of the gas enterprises can be assigned a higher weight. The real-time dynamic risk score can also be assigned a certain weight to ensure that the regional score can accurately reflect the current gas safety level of the region, since the real-time dynamic risk score can timely reflect the change of the regional safety condition. The product of each part score and the corresponding weight is obtained, and the products are added to obtain the final regional score of the to-be-evaluated region. In this way, the safety risk scores corresponding to the at least two responsibility subjects and the real-time dynamic risk score are comprehensively calculated by weight correction, and the final regional score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region can comprehensively and objectively reflect the overall condition of the to-be-evaluated region in terms of gas safety, thereby providing an important basis for regional gas safety management decision-making.

[0065] In step 103, if the regional score is less than or equal to the preset score threshold, the safety risk disposal is performed on the to-be-evaluated region.

[0066] In the embodiment of the present application, after the regional score of the to-be-evaluated region is determined, it is compared with the preset score threshold. If the regional score is less than or equal to the preset score threshold, it indicates that the region has a high safety risk, and the safety risk disposal needs to be performed on the to-be-evaluated region immediately. Exemplarily, the safety risk disposal measures can include but are not limited to the following aspects: for the gas enterprises, it is required to strengthen the safety management, increase the equipment maintenance frequency, and conduct more in-depth safety training for the employees; for the gas users, it is required to carry out safety propaganda and education activities to improve the safety awareness and safety operation skills of the users; for the regional regulatory agencies, it is required to strengthen the supervision and increase the supervision and inspection frequency, and seriously deal with the discovered violations. Meanwhile, a safety risk disposal tracking mechanism can be established to continuously monitor and evaluate the implementation effect of the disposal measures, to ensure that the regional safety risk is effectively controlled, and the to-be-evaluated region is periodically scored to ensure that the regional score of the to-be-evaluated region is greater than the preset score threshold.

[0067] In summary, in the embodiment of the present application, for any responsibility subject in the to-be-evaluated region, a safety evaluation model is adopted to perform safety evaluation on the responsibility subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsibility subject, to obtain a safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject; and based on the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score, a region score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is determined. In the case where the region score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold, safety risk disposal is performed on the to-be-evaluated region. In this way, by performing safety evaluation on the responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region to obtain the safety risk scores, the safety hidden dangers existing in each responsibility subject can be further explored, and risk omission caused by incomplete evaluation can be avoided. Then, by comprehensively considering the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score to determine the region score, the overall safety condition of the to-be-evaluated region can be more scientifically and comprehensively reflected, and then when the region score is less than or equal to the preset score threshold, timely targeted disposal measures can be taken, the possibility of safety accidents can be effectively reduced, the efficiency and standardization of safety management are improved, and a strong guarantee is provided for the safe and stable operation of the to-be-evaluated region.

[0068] In one possible implementation, due to the significant differences in responsibilities, risks and management capabilities assumed by different responsible subjects in gas safety management, the gas enterprise is mainly responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of gas facilities, and its focus is on ensuring the safe and stable operation of the facilities; while the gas user mainly focuses on safe operation and standard behavior in the process of using gas. This difference leads to different emphasis and actual performance of different responsible subjects on the same evaluation index, and thus the weight proportion of the evaluation index for different responsible subjects is different. Therefore, in order to accurately reflect the influence of the evaluation index on different responsible subjects, the upper limit and the lower limit of the score are set in the whole safety evaluation model configuration process. The upper limit and the lower limit of the score are obtained based on comprehensive consideration of industry specifications, historical data and safety risk tolerance and other factors. For example, for the gas enterprise, since it bears greater safety management responsibilities, for some key evaluation indexes such as "gas facility integrity rate", the upper limit of the score will be set relatively high to encourage the enterprise to continuously improve the maintenance level of the facility and ensure that the facility is always in good operating condition. At the same time, the lower limit of the score will also be set strictly, and once the facility integrity rate of the enterprise is lower than the lower limit, it will face more serious score deduction to prompt it to rectify in time. For the gas user, for the evaluation index such as "safety operation standard degree", the upper limit of the score may be relatively low because the user's safety operation ability is limited by many factors, but the lower limit of the score is also important, and if the user frequently appears unsafe operation behavior, reaches or is lower than the lower limit, it will also be subject to corresponding score deduction to remind the user to pay attention to safety operation.

[0069] At the same time, a score coefficient can also be introduced to further correct the final influence score of the evaluation index on the responsible subject. The score coefficient is determined according to the type, size, historical safety performance and other factors of the responsible subject. For example, in the "emergency plan completeness" evaluation index, large enterprises may have more professional emergency teams and more perfect emergency plans, so their score coefficient will be higher than that of small enterprises, so that the weight of this index in their final score will be greater. For some new users connected to the gas system, due to their lack of experience in safely using gas, they may set a lower score coefficient for the "safety knowledge awareness rate" evaluation index, and gradually increase the score coefficient as the user's use time increases and the safety knowledge popularizes.

[0070] By setting the upper limit, lower limit and score coefficient of the score, the final influence score of the evaluation index on different responsibility subjects can be accurately corrected. In the actual evaluation process, first, according to the actual performance of the responsibility subject on each evaluation index, the original score is calculated according to the preset scoring rule. Then, combined with the upper limit, lower limit and score coefficient corresponding to the evaluation index, the original score is adjusted. If the original score exceeds the upper limit, the upper limit score is calculated; if it is lower than the lower limit, the lower limit score is calculated. Finally, the adjusted score is multiplied by the score coefficient to obtain the final influence score of the evaluation index on the responsibility subject. In this way, the gas safety status of different responsibility subjects can be more scientifically and reasonably evaluated, providing a strong basis for subsequent safety management and decision-making.

[0071] In another possible implementation, since different projects have different evaluation periods and evaluation object appeals, specific responsibility subjects and corresponding evaluation periods can be set for the safety evaluation model, so that the safety evaluation model will be effective according to the set responsibility subjects and corresponding evaluation periods, and the safety risk score of the specified responsibility subject in the evaluation period will be calculated.

[0072] Optionally, the safety risk score is obtained based on the evaluation index score corresponding to the at least two evaluation indexes; the embodiment of the application can further include the following steps:

[0073] Step 201, for any evaluation index, if the evaluation index score corresponding to the evaluation index is less than the index warning value, the evaluation index is determined as the weak item corresponding to the responsibility subject.

[0074] In the embodiment of the application, for any responsibility subject, the safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject is calculated based on the evaluation index score of at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsibility subject. For each evaluation index, an index warning value corresponding to the evaluation index can be set, wherein the index warning values corresponding to different evaluation indexes can be the same value, or different index warning values can be set according to the importance of the evaluation index. The index warning value can be determined comprehensively according to industry specifications, historical data and safety risk tolerance, etc. The index warning value is used to represent the minimum safety standard that the responsibility subject should achieve on a certain evaluation index.

[0075] For any evaluation index, the evaluation index score corresponding to the evaluation index is compared with the index warning value in real time. If the evaluation index score corresponding to the evaluation index is less than the index warning value, it indicates that the responsibility subject has obvious safety hazards or management loopholes in the aspect involved in the evaluation index, and fails to meet the expected safety requirements. At this time, the evaluation index can be determined as the weak item corresponding to the responsibility subject.

[0076] In the embodiment of the present application, the weak link of the responsible subject in safety management can be accurately identified by determining the weak item, which provides a clear direction for subsequent development of targeted safety improvement measures, and helps the responsible subject to strengthen safety management, reduce safety risks, and improve overall safety level.

[0077] Optionally, the embodiment of the present application can further include the following steps:

[0078] In step 301, the responsible subject is determined as a weak subject when the safety risk score corresponding to the responsible subject is less than the risk threshold corresponding to the responsible subject, or the number of evaluation indexes whose scores are less than the index early warning value is greater than the preset number threshold.

[0079] In the embodiment of the present application, in order to scientifically and accurately identify the responsible subject with high safety risk, the specific determination conditions for different types of responsible subjects, including enterprises and users, to become weak subjects (i.e. weak enterprises and weak users) are defined. The corresponding risk threshold is set for different responsible subjects, which is used to constrain the safety risk score corresponding to the responsible subject. When the safety risk score is less than the risk threshold, it indicates that the responsible subject has obvious safety hazards or management loopholes. At the same time, since the corresponding index early warning value is set for each evaluation index corresponding to the responsible subject, when the number of evaluation indexes whose scores are less than the index early warning value is greater than the preset number threshold, it indicates that the responsible subject has obvious safety hazards or management loopholes in the aspects involved by multiple evaluation indexes, and fails to meet the expected safety requirements. Therefore, when the safety risk score corresponding to the responsible subject is less than the risk threshold corresponding to the responsible subject, or the number of evaluation indexes whose scores are less than the index early warning value is greater than the preset number threshold, the responsible subject is determined as a weak subject. The risk threshold and the preset number threshold can be determined comprehensively according to factors such as the gas safety status of the responsible subject, historical accident data, and safety management requirements.

[0080] It can be understood that the number of evaluation indexes whose scores are less than the index early warning value is greater than the preset number threshold, that is, the number of weak items corresponding to the responsible subject is greater than the preset threshold.

[0081] For example, different risk thresholds and preset number thresholds can be set for different responsible subjects. The preset number threshold can be determined according to the total number of evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsible subject, and the risk threshold can be determined based on the full score of the safety risk score.

[0082] For the enterprise type of responsibility subject, if the enterprise meets one of the following conditions, it can be determined as a weak enterprise. First, when the number of evaluation indexes whose evaluation index scores are less than the index warning value exceeds 30% of the total number of evaluation indexes, it means that the enterprise fails to meet the expected safety standards on multiple key safety evaluation indexes, and there are many safety hazards and management loopholes. For example, if there are 10 evaluation indexes for the safety evaluation of the enterprise, when the evaluation index scores of 4 or more evaluation indexes are less than the index warning value, it can be preliminarily determined that the enterprise has a more general problem in safety management. Second, when the safety risk score corresponding to the enterprise is less than the risk threshold corresponding to the responsibility subject, that is, less than 60% of the full score, it indicates that the overall safety risk level of the enterprise is high and has reached a level that needs to be highly concerned. The safety risk score corresponding to the enterprise is based on the comprehensive calculation result of multiple evaluation indexes, which reflects the comprehensive safety condition of the enterprise in safety management, facility operation, personnel operation and the like.

[0083] For the user type of responsibility subject, if the user meets one of the following conditions, it can be determined as a weak user. First, when the number of evaluation indexes whose evaluation index scores are less than the index warning value exceeds 50% of the total number of evaluation indexes, it indicates that the user has many non-standard behaviors or potential risks in the use of gas. For example, if there are 8 evaluation indexes for the safety evaluation of the user, when the scores of 5 or more evaluation indexes are less than the index warning value, it can be considered that the user has a great safety hazard in the process of using gas. Second, when the safety risk score corresponding to the user is less than the risk threshold corresponding to the responsibility subject, that is, less than 60% of the full score, it means that the overall safety risk condition of the user is severe and corresponding measures need to be taken for intervention and improvement.

[0084] In the embodiment of the present application, through the comprehensive determination mechanism based on the safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject and the number of evaluation indexes whose evaluation index scores are less than the index warning value, the responsibility subjects with great problems in safety can be comprehensively and accurately identified, which provides a clear target and direction for subsequent safety management and risk disposal, helps to clarify the responsibility subject and implement the safety responsibility, and improves the timeliness of safety problem disposal to a certain extent.

[0085] Optionally, the weak subject includes a weak enterprise and a weak user. The embodiment of the present application can further include the following steps:

[0086] In step 401, the number of enterprises corresponding to weak enterprises and the number of users corresponding to weak users in the to-be-evaluated region are acquired.

[0087] In the embodiment of the present application, the related data of various types of responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region are acquired, and the number of enterprises corresponding to weak enterprises and the number of users corresponding to weak users are acquired.

[0088] Step 402, in the case that the ratio of the number of enterprises in the to-be-evaluated region to the total number of enterprises is greater than or equal to a first ratio or the ratio of the number of users in the to-be-evaluated region to the total number of users is greater than or equal to a second ratio, the to-be-evaluated region is determined as a weak region.

[0089] In the embodiment of the present application, after obtaining the number of weak enterprises in the to-be-evaluated region and the number of weak users, the ratio of the number of enterprises to the total number of enterprises is compared with the first ratio, and the ratio of the number of users to the total number of users is compared with the second ratio. The first ratio is used to constrain the proportion of weak enterprises in the to-be-evaluated region, and the second ratio is used to constrain the proportion of weak users in the to-be-evaluated region. The first ratio and the second ratio can be determined according to the distribution of gas facilities in the to-be-evaluated region, population density, historical safety accident data, safety management targets and other factors. For example, according to industry experience and safety evaluation model, it is determined that when the number of weak enterprises in the to-be-evaluated region accounts for 60% or more, or the number of weak users in the to-be-evaluated region accounts for 40% or more, the region has a high safety risk and needs to be focused on and managed. Therefore, the first ratio can be set to 60%, and the second ratio can be set to 40%.

[0090] If the ratio of the number of enterprises to the total number of enterprises is greater than or equal to the first ratio, it means that the proportion of weak enterprises in the to-be-evaluated region is high, and there may be a general enterprise safety management problem that will have a greater impact on the overall safety of the to-be-evaluated region. Or if the ratio of the number of users to the total number of users is greater than or equal to the second ratio, it means that there are a large number of users with weak safety awareness or safety hazards in the to-be-evaluated region, which increases the risk of gas safety accidents in the to-be-evaluated region. When any of the above conditions is met, the to-be-evaluated region can be determined as a weak region.

[0091] In the embodiment of the present application, by judging the ratio of weak enterprises and weak users to the total number of enterprises and the total number of users, the region with high safety risk can be accurately and efficiently identified, which provides a clear target and direction for subsequent safety management and risk disposal.

[0092] In a possible implementation, the weak enterprises and the weak users can be further classified, for example, the weak enterprises can be classified according to different operation categories such as pipeline gas, bottled liquefied petroleum gas, gas station and the like, and the weak users can be classified according to regions into urban users and rural users, or classified according to gas sources into pipeline gas users and bottled liquefied petroleum gas users, or classified according to user types into residential users and unit users. Correspondingly, when determining the weak area, the weak area can be further refined based on the enterprise types and the user types, if the ratio of the number of any type of weak enterprise in the to-be-evaluated area to the total number of enterprises of the type is greater than or equal to a third ratio, the to-be-evaluated area is determined as a weak area; if the ratio of the number of any type of weak user in the to-be-evaluated area to the total number of users of the type is greater than or equal to a fourth ratio, the to-be-evaluated area is determined as a weak area. In this way, the weak area is determined by classifying and refining the enterprises and the users, so that the high-risk areas of different types of subjects can be accurately positioned. Different types of weak problems can be targeted by taking targeted measures, so as to improve the safety management efficiency and accuracy, effectively reduce the regional gas safety risk, and ensure public safety.

[0093] Optionally, the embodiment of the present application can further include the following steps:

[0094] Step 501, for any evaluation index, determining a target responsibility subject associated with the evaluation index.

[0095] In the embodiment of the present application, the evaluation index set corresponding to different responsibility subjects can contain the same evaluation index, for example, when the responsibility subject is an enterprise, the evaluation index set corresponding to each enterprise contains the evaluation index "(major hidden danger) hidden danger timely rectification". For any evaluation index, all target responsibility subjects associated with the evaluation index are determined. These target responsibility subjects cover various subjects involved in each link of gas supply, use and supervision, such as gas enterprises, gas users and related regulatory departments. The target responsibility subjects associated with different evaluation indexes can be different, for example, the evaluation index "gas facility maintenance frequency", which is mainly associated with gas enterprises, because they are responsible for the daily maintenance of gas facilities; and the evaluation index "user safety operation specification degree", which is mainly associated with gas users.

[0096] Step 502, in the case that the evaluation index score of each target responsibility subject for the evaluation index is greater than the index early warning value, the evaluation index is determined as a weak link of gas safety risk.

[0097] In the case that the evaluation index score of each target responsibility subject for the evaluation index is less than the index early warning value, the evaluation index is determined as a weak link of gas safety risk. The index early warning value is determined according to industry specifications, historical data, and safety risk tolerance, and represents the minimum safety standard that the responsibility subject should achieve in the evaluation index. For example, if the index early warning value of the evaluation index of "gas leakage detection timeliness" is 90%, and the detection timeliness scores of all gas enterprises and some key gas users associated with the index are less than 90%, it indicates that the relevant responsibility subjects have not generally met the expected safety requirements in the work content involved in the evaluation index, and there is a high safety risk. Therefore, the ineffective supervision of gas leakage detection is a weak link of gas safety risk.

[0098] By focusing on the continuous changes of the weak link, combining the evaluation report generated according to the preset period, offline enabling the relevant supervision departments, and carrying out special rectification for the weak link, when multiple evaluated weak links return to normal and no longer meet the judgment conditions of the weak link, the weak link of the region can be determined to be cancelled.

[0099] In a possible implementation, when determining the weak link, a municipal and above administrative region can be selected as the region to be evaluated. That is, within the scope of the city, all associated target responsibility subjects are evaluated using the same evaluation index, scoring standard and index early warning value. In this way, not only can the evaluation result deviation caused by inconsistent evaluation scope be avoided, but also a unified reference basis for gas safety management in the city and above can be provided, which facilitates the development of targeted safety improvement measures and improves the gas safety level of the city and above.

[0100] Optionally, the embodiment of the present application can further include the following steps:

[0101] Step 601, for any said responsibility subject, set a corresponding evaluation dimension label for each said evaluation index corresponding to the responsibility subject.

[0102] In the embodiment of the present application, in order to comprehensively and systematically measure the safety status in different aspects, corresponding evaluation dimension labels can be set for each evaluation index corresponding to the responsibility subject. The evaluation dimension label is an important identifier for the scene-based and structured classification of the evaluation index, and the setting aims to reasonably divide a plurality of complex and interrelated evaluation indexes according to their actual scene and function in gas safety management. For example, the evaluation indexes related to daily operation and maintenance of gas facilities, equipment state monitoring and the like are classified into the 'operation guarantee' evaluation dimension label; and the evaluation indexes covering safety management system implementation, safety inspection and hidden danger elimination and the like are included in the'safety control' evaluation dimension label. In this way, the logical relationship between the evaluation indexes can be clearly sorted, and a clear framework is provided for subsequent score calculation and analysis.

[0103] In step 602, for any evaluation dimension label, the evaluation index score corresponding to each evaluation index associated with the evaluation dimension label is calculated, and a dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label is obtained.

[0104] In the embodiment of the present application, for any evaluation dimension label, the evaluation index score corresponding to each evaluation index associated with the evaluation dimension label is calculated, and a dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label is obtained. This calculation process is based on the quantified evaluation result of each evaluation index under the corresponding evaluation dimension. Each evaluation index has its specific scoring standard and calculation method, and according to the actual performance of the responsibility subject on the evaluation index, the evaluation index score is obtained according to the preset scoring rule. For example, for the 'gas facility integrity rate' evaluation index under the 'operation guarantee' dimension, the score of the index is obtained by checking and counting the facility damage on site according to the preset conversion rule. Then, the scores of all evaluation indexes associated with the 'operation guarantee' evaluation dimension label are summarized and comprehensively calculated to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label. The calculation method of the dimension score can adopt the weighted average method, summation method and the like, and the selection of the specific method depends on the importance and relevance of each evaluation index in the evaluation dimension.

[0105] For example, according to the corresponding relationship between the evaluation index and the evaluation dimension label, all evaluation index scores associated with a specific evaluation dimension label are extracted, and the dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label is obtained by calculation according to the selected dimension score calculation method. The calculated dimension score is stored in the database, and can be displayed and analyzed according to the business requirements, for example, in the business display interface, by selecting a specific evaluation dimension label, the score under the dimension can be intuitively displayed, which provides strong support for gas safety management and decision-making.

[0106] Figure 2 is a structural schematic diagram of a safety evaluation device provided by the embodiment of the present application, as shown in Figure 2 The device can specifically include:

[0107] The first evaluation module 701 is configured to, for any responsibility subject in the to-be-evaluated region, perform safety evaluation on the responsibility subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsibility subject by using a safety evaluation model, and obtain a safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject.

[0108] The first determination module 702 is configured to determine a region score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region based on the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score.

[0109] The first disposal module 703 is configured to, in a case where the region score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold, perform safety risk disposal on the to-be-evaluated region.

[0110] The embodiment of the present application provides a safety evaluation device, for any responsibility subject in the to-be-evaluated region, performs safety evaluation on the responsibility subject based on at least two evaluation indexes corresponding to the responsibility subject by using a safety evaluation model, and obtains a safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject. The region score corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is determined based on the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score. In a case where the region score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold, safety risk disposal is performed on the to-be-evaluated region. In this way, the safety risk score is obtained by performing safety evaluation on the responsibility subject in the to-be-evaluated region, which helps to deeply mine the safety hidden danger existing in each responsibility subject and avoid risk omission due to incomplete evaluation. The region score is determined by comprehensively considering the safety risk scores corresponding to at least two responsibility subjects in the to-be-evaluated region and the real-time dynamic risk score, which can more scientifically and comprehensively reflect the overall safety condition of the to-be-evaluated region, and then when the region score is less than or equal to the preset score threshold, timely targeted disposal measures are taken, the possibility of safety accidents is effectively reduced, the efficiency and standardization of safety management are improved, and a strong guarantee is provided for the safe and stable operation of the to-be-evaluated region.

[0111] Optionally, the safety risk score is obtained based on evaluation index scores corresponding to the at least two evaluation indexes; and the device further comprises:

[0112] The second determination module is configured to, for any evaluation index, in a case where an evaluation index score corresponding to the evaluation index is less than an index early warning value, determine the evaluation index as a weak item corresponding to the responsibility subject.

[0113] Optionally, the device further comprises:

[0114] The third determining module is configured to determine the responsibility subject as a weak subject in a case where the safety risk score corresponding to the responsibility subject is less than a risk threshold corresponding to the responsibility subject or the number of evaluation indexes whose evaluation index scores are less than an index early warning value is greater than a preset number threshold.

[0115] Optionally, the weak subject includes a weak enterprise and a weak user, and the device further includes:

[0116] The first obtaining module is configured to obtain the number of enterprises corresponding to the weak enterprises in the to-be-evaluated region and the number of users corresponding to the weak users.

[0117] The fourth determining module is configured to determine the to-be-evaluated region as a weak region in a case where a ratio of the number of enterprises to a total number of enterprises corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is greater than or equal to a first ratio, or a ratio of the number of users to a total number of users corresponding to the to-be-evaluated region is greater than or equal to a second ratio.

[0118] Optionally, the device further includes:

[0119] The fifth determining module is configured to determine, for any evaluation index, a target responsibility subject associated with the evaluation index.

[0120] The sixth determining module is configured to determine the evaluation index as a weak link of the gas safety risk in a case where evaluation index scores of the target responsibility subjects with respect to the evaluation index are all greater than an index early warning value.

[0121] Optionally, the device further includes:

[0122] The first setting module is configured to set, for any responsibility subject, an evaluation dimension label corresponding to each evaluation index corresponding to the responsibility subject.

[0123] The first calculating module is configured to calculate, for any evaluation dimension label, an evaluation index score corresponding to each evaluation index associated with the evaluation dimension label to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label.

[0124] The present application also provides an electronic device, referring to Figure 3 , which comprises a processor 801, a memory 802, and a computer program 8021 stored in the memory and executable on the processor, and the processor implements the safety evaluation method of the foregoing embodiments when executing the program.

[0125] The present application also provides a readable storage medium, when the instructions in the storage medium are executed by the processor of an electronic device, the electronic device can execute the safety evaluation method of the foregoing embodiments.

[0126] For apparatus embodiments, since they are substantially similar to the method embodiments, the description is relatively simple, and reference is made to the description of the method embodiments where relevant.

[0127] The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer, virtual system, or other apparatus. Various general purpose systems can be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it can prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will be apparent from the description above. In addition, the present application is not intended to be limited to any particular programming language. It will be appreciated that there are many programming languages that can be used to implement the teachings herein, and any such programming language can be used in connection with the various aspects of the application. The descriptions above are intended to cover all possible combinations of computer software that can be utilized in implementing the present application.

[0128] In the description provided herein, numerous specific details are set forth. However, it is understood that embodiments of the application can be practiced without these specific details. In some instances, well-known methods, structures and techniques have not been described in detail in order to not obscure the understanding of this description.

[0129] Similarly, it is to be understood that the mechanical details of the application sometimes are grouped into single embodiments, figures, or descriptions for the purpose of simplifying the present disclosure and aiding in the understanding of one or more of the inventive aspects. However, this method of disclosure should not be interpreted to mean that the application requires more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, it is regarded that the claims are what define the application and reflect what is regarded as being the invention. Thus, all variations that fall within the meaning of the following claims are to be embraced, including compositions and methods comprising such steps, components or ingredients not expressly listed in the claims.

[0130] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the modules in the apparatuses of the embodiments can be adapted and placed in one or more apparatuses other than the embodiments. The modules or units or components in the embodiments can be combined into one module or unit or component, and further can be divided into more sub-modules or sub-units or sub-components. Any combination of all the features disclosed in the specification (including the accompanying claims, abstract and drawings), and any method or process or steps of any such combination can be made, except that at least some of such features and / or processes or units are mutually exclusive. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, each feature disclosed in the specification (including the accompanying claims, abstract and drawings) can be replaced by alternative features that serve the same, equivalent or similar purpose.

[0131] Various component embodiments of the present application can be implemented in hardware, or as software modules running in one or more processors, or in combinations thereof. As will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art, some or all of the functionality of some or all of the components in the sequencing apparatus according to the present application can be implemented using a microprocessor or a digital signal processor (DSP) in practice. The present application can also be implemented as a program for executing, in whole or in part, the methods described herein on a device or apparatus. Such a program embodying the present application can be stored on a computer-readable medium, or can be in the form of signals on one or more carriers. Such signals can be downloaded from an Internet website, or provided on a carrier, or in any other form.

[0132] It should be noted that the above-mentioned embodiments illustrate rather than limit the application, and that one skilled in the art will be able to design many alternative embodiments without departing from the scope of the appended claims. In the claims, any reference signs placed between parentheses shall not be construed as limiting the claim. The word 'comprising' does not exclude the presence of elements or steps not listed in a claim. The word 'a' or 'an' preceding an element does not exclude the presence of a plurality of such elements. The application can be implemented by means of hardware comprising several distinct elements, and by means of a suitably programmed computer. In the claims, the word 'first','second', 'third', etc. does not limit the number for these elements. These words are only used to distinguish between alternative claims. The mere fact that different claims depend on the same independent claim is not a reason for assuming that the dependent claims are mutually identical.

[0133] Those skilled in the art can clearly understand that, for the convenience and brevity of the description, the specific working processes of the systems, devices and units described above can refer to the corresponding processes in the foregoing method embodiments, which will not be described here.

[0134] It should be noted that all the actions of obtaining signals, information or data in the present application are carried out in accordance with the corresponding data protection regulations and policies of the country where the device is located, and with the authorization of the owner of the corresponding device.

[0135] The above only describes the preferred embodiments of the present application and is not intended to limit the present application. Any modifications, equivalent replacements and improvements made within the spirit and principle of the present application shall be included in the protection scope of the present application.

[0136] The above only describes the specific embodiments of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any person skilled in the art can easily think of changes or replacements within the technical range disclosed by the present application, which shall be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application shall be subject to the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A security assessment method, characterized in that: The method comprises: For any responsible party in the area to be assessed, a security assessment model is used to conduct a security assessment on the responsible party based on at least two evaluation indicators corresponding to the responsible party, thereby obtaining a security risk score corresponding to the responsible party; Determining a regional score corresponding to the area to be assessed based on the security risk scores and real-time dynamic risk scores corresponding to at least two responsible entities in the area to be assessed; When the score of the area is less than or equal to a preset score threshold, security risk disposal is performed on the area to be assessed.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The security risk score is obtained based on the evaluation indicator scores corresponding to the at least two evaluation indicators; the method further includes: For any evaluation indicator, when the evaluation indicator score corresponding to the evaluation indicator is less than the indicator warning value, the evaluation indicator is determined as a weak item corresponding to the responsible entity.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The method further comprises: When the security risk score corresponding to the responsible entity is less than the risk threshold corresponding to the responsible entity or the number of evaluation indicators whose evaluation indicator scores are less than the indicator warning values ​​is greater than a preset number threshold, the responsible entity is determined to be a weak entity.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that The weak subjects include weak enterprises and weak users; the method further includes: Obtain the number of enterprises corresponding to weak enterprises and the number of users corresponding to weak users in the area to be evaluated; When the ratio of the number of enterprises to the total number of enterprises corresponding to the area to be evaluated is greater than or equal to a first ratio, or the ratio of the number of users to the total number of users corresponding to the area to be evaluated is greater than or equal to a second ratio, the area to be evaluated is determined to be a weak area.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein The method further comprises: For any evaluation indicator, determine the target responsible entity associated with the evaluation indicator; When the evaluation index scores of each target responsible entity for the evaluation index are greater than the index warning value, the evaluation index is determined to be a weak link in gas safety risk.

6. The method according to claim 1, wherein The method further comprises: For any of the responsible entities, set corresponding evaluation dimension labels for each of the evaluation indicators corresponding to the responsible entity; For any of the evaluation dimension labels, the evaluation indicator scores corresponding to the evaluation indicators associated with the evaluation dimension label are calculated to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the evaluation dimension label.

7. A safety assessment device, characterized in that: The device comprises: The first assessment module is configured to use a security assessment model to conduct a security assessment on any responsible entity in the area to be assessed based on at least two evaluation indicators corresponding to the responsible entity, thereby obtaining a security risk score corresponding to the responsible entity; A first determining module is configured to determine a regional score corresponding to the area to be assessed based on the security risk scores and real-time dynamic risk scores corresponding to at least two responsible entities in the area to be assessed; The first handling module is configured to handle the security risk of the area to be assessed when the area score is less than or equal to a preset score threshold.

8. The device according to claim 7, characterized in that The security risk score is obtained based on the evaluation indicator scores corresponding to the at least two evaluation indicators; the device further includes: The second determination module is configured to determine, for any evaluation indicator, if the evaluation indicator score corresponding to the evaluation indicator is less than the indicator warning value, the evaluation indicator as a weakness corresponding to the responsible entity.

9. An electronic device, characterized in that: include: A processor, a memory, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor implements the security assessment method according to any one of claims 1 to 6 when executing the program.

10. A readable storage medium, characterized in that: When the instructions in the storage medium are executed by a processor of an electronic device, the electronic device is enabled to execute the security assessment method according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

Images