MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023223168 · doi:10.4043/22105-ms

Ice Management for Support of Arctic Floating Operations

2011· article· en· W2023223168 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaDowntimeMarine engineeringSubmarine pipelineDynamic positioningArcticSea iceDrillingEnvironmental scienceOffshore drillingArctic ice packOceanographyEngineeringGeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the industry moves further offshore in the Arctic where open water seasons are small to non-existent, ice management will be a critical enabling technology to allow floating vessels to keep station (for drilling, tanker loading, well workovers or subsea equipment maintenance). This paper describes some of the key considerations for accomplishing the complex task of ice management and demonstrates a simulation-based means for testing the efficacy of various tactics against measured ice data. Examples are provided wherein published ice management fleet deployment scenarios are evaluated using measured ice drift and thickness time histories provided by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans for prospective drilling sites in the Canadian Beaufort. The results provide insight into the ice management fleet composition, fleet deployment strategies and frequency/duration of expected downtime due to ice conditions that would exceed the operating limits of the fleet. Introduction A major challenge of high-Arctic development lies in water depths exceeding about 100 m, where the traditional bottom-founded structures become impractical and stationary floating vessels are required for drilling and other key offshore operations. Unmanaged drifting sea ice can generate loads far beyond the capabilities of conventional station-keeping systems that use either dynamic positioning (DP) or anchored moorings. Ice management -- the process of protecting a stationary vessel in moving ice using icebreakers working upstream of the vessel to create a continuous channel of thoroughly broken-up floes (Figure 1) -- is required to reduce ice loads to manageable levels. Contrary to traditional icebreaker operations, where escort icebreakers exploit weak zones in the ice to create a channel for a transiting vessel, ice management for a stationary vessel must deal with whatever ice drifts across the fixed location. Amongst the challenges is that sea ice frequently drifts at speeds over 1 knot, which can make it difficult for a reasonable number of icebreakers to process the ice into sufficiently small floe sizes. Additionally, the ice drift heading varies constantly, with frequent changes of 180 degrees or more in a few hours, which challenges the fleet's ability to maintain the protected vessel within the managed ice channel created by icebreakers working updrift in the moving ice. Finally, some multi-year ice floes in the high-Arctic are too thick to be broken by even the largest conceivable icebreakers, so it is important to know the frequency with which these features may be encountered.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · 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