MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002547025 · doi:10.1109/oceans.2007.4449301

Design and Testing of a Snap Load Alleviator for a Submarine Rescue Vehicle Handling System

2007· article· en· W2002547025 on OpenAlexaff
A. Huster, Adrian Dayani, David Lo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsOceanWorks International (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWinchInertiaBackupLift (data mining)Lifting equipmentMarine engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceSimulationStructural engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The snap load alleviator (SLA) is a passive, hydraulic, shock-absorbing backup system to mitigate snap loads in a launch and recovery system for a manned submersible. The SLA is part of a mitigation strategy for potential failures identified as part of a hazard analysis. This analysis considered failures in the active heave compensation system, which is the primary approach to compensate for vessel heave in rough seas. To reduce the size and weight of the SLA, it has been designed with a much shorter stroke than the magnitude of expected vessel heave. The SLA has low inertia and mitigates only the leading edge of a snap load while the rendering function of the lift winch, which has much higher inertia, deploys additional lift line before the SLA runs out of stroke. Tight coupling of the dynamic properties of the SLA and the lift winch is required for this approach to succeed. The rationale and the design of the SLA is presented. Computer simulations demonstrate the snap loading problem and validate the proposed solution. Hardware testing to qualify the design and to corroborate the simulations is described.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207