MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing Navy Hull Forms for Fuel Economy

2004· article· en· W2133506494 on OpenAlex
Gabor Karafiath, Donald McCallum, Dane Hendrix

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNaval Engineers Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMaritime Transport Emissions and Efficiency
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
FundersU.S. NavyMinistry of DefenseGeorge Mason University
KeywordsHullNavyNaval architectureEngineeringAsset (computer security)Marine engineeringFuel efficiencyOperations researchComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT During initial hull form design, a multitude of requirements need to be met. Among these are mission, ship size, armament, communications, stability, speed, sea keeping, etc. Tools such as ASSET are used to arrive at a design solution that will satisfy all these requirements. However, at this early design stage, attention needs to be given to the hull form shape, and its impact upon fuel consumption. Rising fuel costs and the need to conserve energy have mandated that Navy designs become more “energy efficient.” This paper documents a new design metric “C PE ” for evaluating the resistance of any hull design. A C PE database is developed from historic model test data residing in the U.S. Navy Hull Design Database System (HDDS). C PE compares the resistance of a hull form to that of a similar Taylor Standard Series hull form. The paper also introduces a new hull form optimization computer program developed by Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) and applies this program to show the potential for hull form improvement and fuel cost savings.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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