## 3 Results and Discussion
### Human Error
#### 3.3.2 Research Status  
The research here is similar to that in Section 3.2.2. The numbers of collected articles are displayed in Table 5. Human error probability research is included in this section because it has the keyword \"human error\". Three articles were literature reviews concerning human error, and the remainder were research papers. The detailed content of Table 5 can be seen in Appendix C. Notably, human-factor-related error and human-related error are equivalent to human error [56]  
Research Article  
The number of articles in this group was somewhat lower than those in the human factor group. Among the articles in this group, about 40% focused on human error probability (HEP). These studies seldom provide human error content but find the most probable human errors from the listed tasks. However, the remaining 60% discussed human error contents, even as a byproduct. [PERSON] et al. [57] used the AHP model to study the prevention of grounding accidents, presenting four categories of human error: team management errors, voyage management errors, application errors, and individual errors. [PERSON] et al. [16] developed a THER-BN model to assess HEP on human autonomy collaboration. They identified 16 human errors and divided them into three groups: perception \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline
**Ref.** & **Definitions** \\ \hline [PERSON], [PERSON] [53] & Any human action, or lack thereof, that exceeds or fails to achieve some limit of acceptability, where limits of human performance are defined by the system. \\ [PERSON] et al. [54] & Human error is an inappropriate or unacceptable human decision or action that degrades efficiency, safety, or system performance. \\ IMO resolutions A. 884(21) [33] & Human error is a departure from acceptable or desirable practice on the part of an individual or group of individuals that can result in unacceptable or undesirable results. \\ [PERSON] [55] & Human error is defined as the failure to perform a prescribed task or performing a prohibited activity, with consequences that can result in serious injury and property loss, as well as near-miss incidents. \\ [PERSON] et al. [15] & Human error is treated as a natural consequence arising from a discontinuity between human capabilities and system demands. \\ [PERSON] et al. [13] & Human error is a non-observable construct, used to make causal inferences, without clarity on the mechanism behind causation. \\ [PERSON], RPE [10] & Human error refers to acts which are judged by somebody to deviate from some kind of reference act. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Definitions of human error. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline
**Category** & **Number of Documents** \\ \hline Journal article & 26 \\ Conference paper & 3 \\ Dissertation & 2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Collected articles titled human error. error, decision error, and execution error. [PERSON] et al. [56] proposed an association-rule Bayesian network (ARBN) method to analyze the influencing factors in collision accidents. Six human errors were identified and further divided into two categories: Type I refers to the occurrence of negligence errors, and Type II refers to the occurrence of judgment/operation errors. [PERSON] et al. [58] developed a SOHRA model to quantify human error during bunkering operations. The identified errors included inadequate reports or monitoring, delayed or inadequate feedback, inadequate checking/inspection, and lack of proper execution. [PERSON] [59] constructed an FTA-CREAM model to assess human error in oil tanker grounding accidents. Five types of human error were proposed as follows: planning failure, verification failure, individual crew failure, incorrect action, and monitoring failure. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al. [60] proposed an MMOHRA model to study error-producing conditions in maritime operations.