MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044660039 · doi:10.1115/omae2004-51450

Reliability Calibration of a Waves–Icebergs Interaction Load Combination Factor

2004· article· en· W2044660039 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ricardo O. Foschi, Michael Isaacson, Norman Allyn

Bibliographic record

Venue23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Volume 1, Parts A and B · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergSubmarine pipelineReliability (semiconductor)Range (aeronautics)Load factorMarine engineeringSafety factorFunction (biology)CalibrationComputer scienceReliability engineeringStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsMeteorologyPhysicsMathematicsSea iceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Standards Association [1] has developed and published a code for the design and construction of fixed offshore structures. One of the limit states relates to the combined effects of waves and iceberg collision loading. The Code uses a load combination factor to determine the design load effect. The present paper describes a recent study on the appropriateness of the recommended value of the combination factor. The study involves a numerical analysis in which loads have been calculated, at different probability levels, for a range of iceberg and wave parameters, considering waves alone, an iceberg alone, and an iceberg and waves in combination. The paper thereby makes recommendations for the load combination factor as a function of iceberg and sea state parameters.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Volume 1, Parts A and BSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207