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 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

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 head0.016
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