MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2248113021

A review of the morphological and mechanical properties of first-year sea ice ridges

2011· review· en· W2248113021 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucie Strub-Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeelRidgeGeologySea iceArcticGeodesyClimatologyOceanographyPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of full-scale first-year sea ice ridges is presented with a special focus on the morphological and mechanical properties. Ridges from 1971 to present are described. The study area covers the Arctic Ocean, the Canadian and Russian Seas, the Barents Sea, the Baltic Sea and the fjords of Svalbard. The morphological properties (e.g. the sail height and the keel depth) of 204 ridges are listed. The morphology of a ridge is commonly specified by the keel-to-sail ratio, which is influenced by the shape of the ridge itself and the calculation method. Each of these calculation methods leads to much different results and interpretations. The correlation between the sail height and the keel depth was best characterized by a logarithmic relationship. A short statistical analysis revealed that the keel-to-sail ratios had a lognormal distribution. Finally, determining the strength of a first-year ice ridge is more difficult than level ice. It can be described by “localized” tests (confined and unconfined compressive tests, drop ball tests), where separate samples from the ridge are tested, or by “globalized” tests (direct shear tests, punch shear tests), where the resistance of the whole structure is tested. Very little data exist and are available, but a list of authors reporting such tests is given as well.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic ConditionsSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207