Comparison Study on the Resistance Characteristics of an Arctic Tanker and a General Tanker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hull form of icebreaking tanker depends on the trade route and ice characteristic. The hull form has to be designed for icebreaking concept if the vessel is operating in heavy ice and also the hull from has to be optimized for general tanker when the ship is operating in ice-free ocean. This paper presents comparison of ship resistance in pack ice, level ice and open water. Four ships are used to compare the resistance characteristic. One is conventional tanker and three ships are icebreaking tankers. The ice model test was carried out at the IOT (Institute for Ocean Technology, Newfoundland, Canada) and open water test was performed at 55MB (Samsung Ship Model Basin). The ice resistance of conventional tanker was predicted by Colbourne's method. The resistance of open water, pack ice and level ice are compared and discussed. The best hull form of icebreaker is not good in open water performance compare to conventional tanker. This result explains that the hull form of icebreaker and normal tanker have to compromise when the ship is operated in ice and ice-free condition. The result of this paper gives a guide for icebreaking tanker design.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".