MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128691956 · doi:10.5394/kinpr.2013.37.6.647

Design Conditions for Dolphin Berth by Tanker Fleet Analysis

2013· article· en· W2128691956 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seok‐Jin Kang, Joong-Woo Lee, Dong‐Hyun Lee, Hee-Jae Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Navigation and Port Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Coastal Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBallastMooringPort (circuit theory)EngineeringNaval architectureTransshipment (information security)Marine engineeringTruckTransport engineeringOperations researchAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy acquisition due to the increase of oil price is one of the most important issues and policy for most countries. Various tankers have been built in the world and sent to the trade market. It is necessary to build the port infrastructure and facilities to give them proper services such as mooring, packing, storing, and transshipment, etc. However, the domestic guidelines or standards for design and construction for the dolphin berth among these facilities are out of date and do not meet the recent trend of tanker types. Therefore, it requires amendment on the guidelines or standards. In this study, a detailed analysis of the tanker fleet, covering 8,000 ships under operation and order to build, is made to estimate the proper PBL(Parallel Body Length) of each tanker class. After discussion and comparison on the dolphin berth design and construction codes of various countries, those are the leading countries of tanker operation and management, suggestion was made to amend on the design code. The referred codes are of Korea, Japan, UK, USA, and Canada. The analysis of tanker fleet shows the PBL as 0.45L under the normal ballast condition. In order to verify the deduced amendment on the domestic design code for dolphin berth, it was selected one of the domestic dolphin berth, located at the Yeosu oil terminal, which is almost completed to construct. The design criteria and expected tankers to moor in that terminal were analyzed and the appropriateness and countermeasure for deficiency were summarized.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Navigation and Port ResearchSame topicMarine and Coastal ResearchFrench-language works237,207