MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078113109 · doi:10.4043/22055-ms

Feasibility of Escape, Evacuation and Rescue for Facilities in Arctic Shear Zone Environments

2011· article· en· W2078113109 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Marsden, Melanie Totten, Walt Spring

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticSearch and rescueSubmarine pipelineWork (physics)Exclusive economic zoneEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental resource managementOffshore oil and gasComputer scienceIdentification (biology)GeologyOceanographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An area of concern for any offshore oil development beyond the "transition zone", the zone where multi-year ice and land- fast ice meet, is Escape, Evacuation and Rescue (EER). Due to the unique environmental conditions, e.g., large ice ridges, conventional evacuation methods such as lifeboats may not be sufficient. The unique environmental challenges in the Alaskan OCS and their potential impact on EER will be described. A feasibility assessment focused on the secondary evacuation component of EER will also be described. This assessment consisted of establishing performance standards related to the expected operating environment, identification of proven and novel evacuation methods, evaluation of these methods versus the performance standards, and prioritization of future work. Finally, recently-conduted data collection and analysis and technology maturation studies related to EER will be discussed. INTRODUCTION Shell's objective in Alaska is to find and develop commercial hydrocarbon resources in the Chukchi and Beaufort Outer Continental Shelf. As with all Shell ventures, the company maintains high operational and social performance standards that will bring, with exploration success, economic expansion and new opportunities to communities across Alaska and the Northwest. Since returning to Alaska in 2005 Shell has embarked on an extensive field data acquisition, R&D and technology maturation effort aimed at supporting exploration and future development. This paper focuses on development of a robust Escape, Evacuation, and Rescue (EER) solution for the Alaska OCS operating environment. The oil industry has operated successfully in Arctic and sub-Arctic locations since the 1960s. However, as the industry pursues offshore developments in the Arctic with more severe environmental conditions, it must develop new solutions and/or extend existing ones to meet these new challenges. One of the key technology challenges is development of a robust Escape, Evacuation, and Rescue (EER) solution for offshore developments in the "shear zone", where land-fast ice interacts with the mobile polar ice pack. Solutions for less severe mobile first year regions, such as Cook Inlet, offshore Newfoundland, offshore Sakhalin Island, and the northern Caspian Sea, have been developed using modified open water equipment and techniques and purpose-built craft.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTC Arctic Technology ConferenceSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207