MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2198558934 · doi:10.1115/omae2015-42114

Model-Scale/Full-Scale Correlation of NRC-OCRE’s Model Resistance, Propulsion and Maneuvering Test Results

2015· article· en· W2198558934 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Lau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFull scaleMarine engineeringScale (ratio)LitmusScale modelTest (biology)EngineeringPropulsionCorrelation coefficientMarine propulsionAerospace engineeringComputer scienceGeologyStructural engineeringGeographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are a variety of model ices and test techniques adopted by model test facilities. Most often, the clients would ask: “How well can you predict the full scale performance from your model test results?” Model-scale/full-scale correlation becomes an important litmus test to validate a model test technique and its results. This paper summarizes the model-scale/full-scale correlation performed on model test data generated at the National Research Council - Ocean, Coastal, and River Engineering’s (NRC-OCRE) test facility in St. John’s. This correlation includes ship performance predictions, i.e., resistance, propulsion and maneuvering. Selected works from NRC-OCRE on the USCGC icebreaker Healy, the CCGS icebreaker Terry-Fox, the CCGS R-Class icebreakers Pierre Radisson and Sir John Franklin and the CCGS icebreaker Louis S. St. Laurent were reviewed and summarized. The model tests were conducted at NRC-OCRE’s ice tank with the correct density (CD) EGADS model ice. This correlation is based on the concept that a “correlation friction coefficient” (CFC) can be used to predict full-scale ship icebreaking resistance from model test data. The CFCs have been compared for correlation studies using good-quality full-scale information for the five icebreaker models in the NRC-OCRE’s model test database. The review has shown a good agreement between NRCOCRE’s model test predictions and full-scale measurements. The resistance and power correlation were performed for five sets of full-scale data. Although there is substantial uncertainty on ice thickness and ice strength within the full scale data sets that contributes to data scattering, the data suggest a conservative estimate can be obtained to address reasonably this uncertainty by increasing the model prediction by 15% that envelopes most data points. Limited correlation for maneuvering in ice was performed for the USCGC icebreaker Healy. Selected test conditions from the sea trials were duplicated for the maneuvering tests and turning diameters were measured from the arcs of partial circles made in the ice tank. Performance predictions were then compared to the full-scale data previously collected. Despite some discrepancy in ice strength and power level between the model tests and sea trial, the model data agree well with the sea trial data except for three outliers. Otherwise, the maneuvering data show a good correlation between the model test and sea trial results.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→