MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023036090 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0327

Installation of dynamically embedded plate anchors as assessed through field tests

2015· article· en· W2023036090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Blake, Conleth O’Loughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbedmentDragSeabedGeotechnical engineeringGeologyAccelerationStructural engineeringEngineeringMarine engineeringAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dynamically embedded plate anchor (DEPLA) is a rocket-shaped anchor that comprises a removable central shaft and a set of four flukes. The DEPLA penetrates to a target depth in the seabed by the kinetic energy obtained through free-fall in water. After embedment the central shaft is retrieved leaving the anchor flukes vertically embedded in the seabed. The flukes constitute the load-bearing element as a plate anchor. This paper focuses on the dynamic installation of the DEPLA. Net resistance and velocity profiles are derived from acceleration data measured by an inertial measurement unit during DEPLA field tests, which are compared with corresponding theoretical profiles based on strain rate–enhanced shear resistance and fluid mechanics drag resistance. Comparison of the measured net resistance force profiles with the model predictions shows fair agreement at 1:12 scale and good agreement at 1:7.2 and 1:4.5 scales. For all scales the embedment model predicts the final anchor embedment depth to a high degree of accuracy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207