MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1025651271 · doi:10.5957/attc-2004-015

Measurement Techniques for Full Scale Test of a Submersible Walking Dredger/ Miner

2004· article· en· W1025651271 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnvironmental Engineering and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designMarine engineeringSoftware deploymentEngineeringScale (ratio)TerrainComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of surface floating dredgers in deep inland reservoirs, shelf areas and tidal inlets is limited by several operational restrictions and mobilization problems. Deployment of small, modular, autonomous to semi-autonomous submersible dredgers/ miners in these areas is expected to reduce the operational and mobilization constraints. Most of the existing submersible dredgers/ miners use tracks for locomotion on submerged ground. Legged locomotion is however favored in these natural unstructured terrains. A small, modular, walking submersible dredger/ miner is designed and a prototype is under construction. Prediction of the major design parameters of such a system requires a mathematical model integrating the processes of excavation, transportation of the excavated material and locomotion of the vehicle while moving on submerged ground. This paper gives a brief overview of the full scale tests to be performed with the prototype for validation of part of the mathematical model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it