MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006284308 · doi:10.1680/ijpmg.14.00014

Modelling ice rubble–rock berm interaction

2015· article· en· W2006284308 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Phillips, Ken Chi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBermRubbleGeotechnical engineeringGeologyCentrifugeFoundation (evidence)Debris

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rock berms are being used to protect seabed infrastructure, such as pipelines, from grounding ice rubble features. Typical rock berms may be damaged under shear by a first-year grounded ice rubble keel. A series of physical model tests in a geotechnical centrifuge has indicated that such damage occurs under loads less than those typical of actual design conditions. These tests have both reproduced failures of the rock berm and identified failure criteria for the ice rubble.

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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in GeotechnicsSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207