MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2249907294

ISO TC 67 SC 7 WG 8: An International Standard for Arctic Offshore Structures

2003· article· en· W2249907294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Denis Blanchet, Ken Croasdale, L Fogwill

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmarine pipelineScope (computer science)Work (physics)ArcticScheduleBusinessEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningLibrary scienceOceanographyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeologyMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2000, the International Standards Organisation (ISO) re-allocated priority to an Arctic Offshore Structures Standard. Canada, having an active process and committees in place for Arctic Offshore Structures, took the initiative to propose a new work item to ISO. In response to the Canadian initiative, ISO Technical Committee 67 (TC67), Sub-Committee 7 (SC7 - Offshore Structures) approved, in 2002, a New Work Item Proposal to develop a new code related to “Petroleum and natural gas industries - Arctic offshore structures”. An objective of this code was also to harmonise existing international offshore codes and standards related to the Arctic. SC7 established Working Group 8 (WG 8) in response to the approval of this New Work Item Proposal. WG8 held its first meeting in July 2002, in Toronto, Canada. All countries with offshore regions that experience ice covered waters, or have an interest in these regions, were requested to provide country representatives and technical experts to staff respectively WG8 and the Technical Panels formed by WG8 to actually prepare the document. This paper describes the WG8 organizational structure, its scope of work, current membership, delivery schedule, and progress to date.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic ConditionsSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207