MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084526925 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2003-1-503

Approaches to Nontank Vessel Contingency Planning1

2003· article· en· W2084526925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elise G. DeCola, Tim Robertson, Roy Robertson, Lori Crews, Mike Munger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContingency planOil spillPetroleumPlan (archaeology)FishingEnvironmental planningMarine engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceGeographyFisheryGeologyManagementArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Tank vessels that carry oil as cargo are subject to a number of international, national, and local regulations requiring that the vessel owners plan for and be prepared to respond to oil spills. By comparison, nontank vessels such as freighters, passenger ships, and fishing vessels typically have not been subject to the same level of oil spill prevention and response requirements. However, a number of recent, high-profile nontank vessel oil spills have heightened public awareness of the oil spill risk posed by nontank vessels. In response to such events, several US states have implemented regulations requiring nontank vessels to prepare oil spill contingency plans similar to those required for tankers and tank barges. This paper considers several different approaches to oil spill contingency planning for nontank vessels, focusing on the Pacific coast of the United States and Canada. The authors compare the requirements in place in Alaska, California, Washington, Oregon and British Columbia, and make recommendations to promote a parallel planning process along the Pacific coast of North America.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Oil Spill Conference ProceedingsSame topicMaritime Navigation and SafetyFrench-language works237,207