MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2249551386

Sea Ice Loads Due to Managed Ice

2009· article· en· W2249551386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ken Croasdale, J R Bruce, Pavel Liferov

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubbleSea iceLead (geology)Arctic ice packGeologyIce divideMarine engineeringMooringIce fieldSeabed gouging by iceDrift iceEngineeringOceanographyGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyGlacier
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managed ice is the term given to ice that has been broken ahead of a platform or anchored vessel in order to reduce the ice loads or other effects of ice interaction such as rubble build up. Ice features which would create loads greater than the mooring loads of the stationary platform or vessel are broken into small pieces to reduce the ice loads. This is usually done with several icebreakers; one or more breaking ice in the far field and one or more breaking ice in the near field. Although there is some experience on how much management is required to reduce mooring loads, the present methods for managed ice loads rely on expert judgment and are empirical. In this paper, simple concepts for managed ice loads have been developed and quantified. Ice load concepts and equations are presented based on piece size of the managed ice, ice and rubble thickness, and whether there is any ice pressure in the ice field. These concepts can be used to specify piece sizes to be achieved and operational tactics in various ice management scenarios for a given floating platform and mooring system. Comparisons are made with the Kulluk experience and loads in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in order to help verify the equations and calibrate the inputs.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
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