MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071080671 · doi:10.1115/omae2014-23085

Backbone for Escape, Evacuation and Rescue From Arctic Facilities: A Systematic Approach

2014· article· en· W2071080671 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsArcticHuman settlementContext (archaeology)The arcticBusinessOrder (exchange)Environmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In turn of the global warming and driven by the constant need for resources an increasing number of commercial and scientific activities conquer the Arctic in order to benefit from almost untouched resources like oil and gas but also from the overwhelming nature. These activities are accompanied by a steadily increasing number of vessels transporting goods but also operating personnel, scientists or tourists. Especially the number of tourists visiting the Arctic can reach far more than 1000 per vessel, resulting in growing headaches for the responsible safety and security authorities in the Arctic surrounding countries. Up to now no suitable Escape, Evacuation and Rescue (EER) concept is in place to cope with these challenges when it comes to hazardous situations. In this context IMPaC ([1]) developed a new and appropriate EER concept for the Arctic, exceeding the currently dominant small and isolated settlements along the coastlines in Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia, Canada and the US. One question seems to be central: Is there any requirement and benefit beyond the currently used small rescue station? Yes, we strongly believe that there is a growing demand for suitable infrastructure coming from various industries. Beyond rescue objectives there is a demand for people working and living in this area all year long, for a few days, weeks or months using these settlements for their specific needs. This led us to the idea of the provision of a common-use infrastructure for multiple industries. The commonly used infrastructure maximizes the use of the remote and very expensive infrastructure and minimizes the impact on the environment in this part of the world. Potential users of this infrastructure would be: • Oil & Gas Industry, driven by the increased world energy demand • Marine Transport & Tourism Industry, driven by declined arctic ice and new sea routes via the Arctic sea • Fishery Industry • Scientific community Any EER concept for the Arctic has to cope with several specific environmental and spatial challenges as addressed by the EU joint research project ACCESS ([2]), where IMPaC participates. The paper introduces the new EER concept and focuses especially on its beneficial, efficient and safe operability in the Arctic recording an increasing number of commercial and scientific activities.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207