MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287078390 · doi:10.4043/24610-ms

Operability of Lifeboats on Pack Ice: Coxswains’ Skill and Design Factors

2014· article· en· W2287078390 on OpenAlexafffund
Randy Billard, Md Samsur Rahman, Allison Kennedy, António Simões Ré, Brian Veitch

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Safety, and Science Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyNatural Resources CanadaPetroleum Research Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsOperabilityCrewAeronauticsMarine engineeringArcticEngineeringSea iceDisaster responseSystems engineeringEnvironmental scienceEmergency managementMeteorologyReliability engineeringOceanographyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increased resource exploration and transportation in the Arctic has catalyzed the evaluation of equipment and procedures to determine their suitability for ice covered waters. Remote operating locations and harsh physical environments present new operational challenges and increased complexity that must be addressed to ensure environmental and personnel safety is not compromised. Emergency response in sea ice is a specific area that must be assessed to ensure that personnel are able to escape, evacuate, and be rescued in conditions that will be experienced during operations in the north. Regulators will expect that operators will be able to demonstrate that lifeboats can be safely launched and that the craft can navigate to a safe zone for rescue of personnel. The paper describes an investigation into the operability of conventional lifeboats in pack ice conditions. The investigation was based on field trials of a small Totally Enclosed Motor Propelled Survival Craft (TEMPSC) lifeboat that was operated in a range of controlled pack ice conditions. The study focused on observing how operators with different levels of experience and backgrounds operated in ice, how their behaviors impacted their ability to maneuver through the ice field and the impact on the vessel and crew. Participants in the trials had different levels of experience operating in ice and in small crafts. The coxswains who participated in the investigation had a range of operational experience with vessels in ice, including operators who have worked aboard icebreaking vessels, but with limited experience operating in small vessels, and operators with experience operating small vessels, but with limited experience operating in ice. During the field trials, coxswains employed different tactics for advancing through ice. The outcomes of the study were used to analyze the impact of different driving techniques on the ability of the coxswain to successfully maneuver through ice and the impact of driving style on vessel integrity and crew comfort. The results of the study assess the tactics which can be employed by coxswains in different ice concentrations and the outcomes can be used to define learning objectives for training programs designed to prepare coxswains for emergency operations in ice covered waters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTC Arctic Technology ConferenceSame topicEducation, Safety, and Science StudiesFrench-language works237,207