MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2241456854

ASSESSMENT OF THE VIABILITY OF ON-ICE EVACUATION SHELTERS IN THE BEAUFORT SEA

2007· article· en· W2241456854 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne Barker, Brian D. Wright, G.W. Timco

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubbleBeaufort seaSea iceSubmarine pipelineBeaufort scaleGeologyIcebergPlan (archaeology)MeteorologyOceanographyGeographyGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an assessment of the viability of locating evacuation shelters on landfast ice or rubble fields surrounding offshore structures in the Beaufort Sea. For platforms surrounded by stable landfast ice and/or rubble, on-ice evacuation to an evacuation shelter (ES) may be identified as part of an EER plan during the Beaufort Sea�s winter season. There are a number of factors that must be recognized when considering the deployment of an ES on the ice cover around Beaufort Sea structures; for example, the stability and morphology of the ice, the location and number of routes to shelters on the ice and limitations caused of the nature of the emergency. Additionally, issues surrounding personnel access off of a platform and egress to the ES must be examined, along with key concerns about the viability of using an ES soon after freeze-up and during break-up. This paper provides some representative examples of full scale data to illustrate key points about the viability of on-ice ES deployments in winter, on a scenario basis, as a function of water depth. The information that is presented here was assembled through a combination of field experience, literature reviews, and discussions with operating personnel who are directly involved with this type of problem area.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207