A Survey and Engineering design of atmospheric diving suits
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this report is to describe the results of a worldwide industry survey of the atmospheric diving suit (ADS). A glimpse into the past of significant ADSs from Lethbridge's 1715 "diving engine" to the well- recognized JIM suit is discussed. Several facets are presented concerning present day ADSs, including a closer look at the ADSs in operation today in the offshore oil and gas industry and in the deep submergence programs of several international navies. A comparison of current ADSs against other available means of underwater intervention is made that demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of each. A general discussion of the engineering factors to be considered in the design and construction of ADSs is presented as well. Based on direct interviews with executives, technicians and operators directly involved, insight is gained into the future of ADSs, including the latest and forthcoming suits such as, the HARDSUIT 2000 - the U.S. Navy's latest submarine rescue tool, Oceaneering's WASP renovation - of which two are expected be in operation by early 2001, and the futuristic but plausible EXOSUIT, the latest prototype shallow-water swimmable ADS. The results of this survey indicate that atmospheric diving suits are a healthy and thriving community among the oil and gas industry, yet comfortable in their niche between the ambient divers and remotely operated vehicles
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it