MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W206277489

The International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1914: The history and the ongoing mission

2012· article· en· W206277489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine Phillips, Jaideep Sirkar

Bibliographic record

VenueCoast Guard Journal of Safety & Security at Sea, Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionRatificationPolitical scienceWork (physics)GeographyEconomic historyLawHistoryEngineeringPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first International Conference for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) assembled in London from November 23, 1913 to January 20, 1914, in reaction to the tragic sinking of the RMS Titanic. The conference was comprised of more than 100 representatives from a variety of maritime countries, including Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. To address the complicated safety issues, the conference work was divided among six committees: 1. radiotelegraphy, 2. navigation safety, 3. certificates, 4. construction, 5. revision. 6. lifesaving appliances. Each committee was made up of one or more delegates from each of the participating countries. After an unrelenting seven weeks, 13 countries signed the 1914 SOLAS Convention on January 20, 1914. It was ratified by only five nations, though: Great Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. Many countries, including the United States, suspended ratification efforts due to the commencement of World War I. As a result, the 1914 SOLAS Convention never did come into force as intended on July 1, 1915.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.215 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoast Guard Journal of Safety & Security at Sea, Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security CouncilSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207