MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967637834 · doi:10.4043/24631-ms

Methodology for Combined Local and Global Ice Pressure Estimation based on a Probabilistic Model of High Pressure Zone Behavior Derived from Field Data

2014· article· en· W1967637834 on OpenAlexafffund
Rocky Taylor, Martín Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
FundersNational Research Council CanadaResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsProbabilistic logicSea iceScale (ratio)Statistical modelField (mathematics)Computer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceClimatologyMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As our understanding of the failure processes and mechanics associated with individual hpz behavior advances, new models are needed to link hpz behavior with local and global pressures for full-scale interactions. This paper is focused on the development of a probabilistic compressive ice load model for thin first-year sea ice based on statistical descriptions of high pressure zones (hpzs) derived from the analysis of tactile sensor data collected during the Japan Ocean Industries Association (JOIA) medium-scale field indentation test program. The aim of this work is to provide a probabilistic model of hpz behavior that simulates observed local and global pressures and associated scale effects, particularly for interactions involving thin first-year sea ice. Probabilistic descriptions of high pressure zones based on field measurements have been extracted and are incorporated into a model for linking hpzs with methodology for ice pressure estimation. A comparison with local and global pressure design curves generated using methodology provided by ISO 19906 is included.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTC Arctic Technology ConferenceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207