MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301853291

Terro Nova FPSO on the Grand Banks of Canada

2001· article· en· W2301853291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G.V. Lever, J. R. KEAN, K. Muggeridge

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergSubmarine pipelineSubseaEngineeringOceanographyGeographyMarine engineeringSea iceGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 15 years developments in technology, the opening of new frontiers and the increased emphasis on the value driven development, have resulted in an increased use of floating production facilities for offshore oil production. As of February 2001 there were 121 floating structures production systems in the use throughout the world, while another 27 were on order. The Terra Nova Development is 350km east-southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland, near the nose of the Grand Banks. The field was discovered in 1984 and approved for development twelve years later in 1996. Following on the heals of the Hibernia development, Terra Nova was not considered economically robust enough to support a gravity base, ice-resistant structure development concept on that basis a decision was made to use a floating production solution. The Terra Nova Development has and will establish a number of firsts including the first FPSO to operate in Canadian waters and the first to operate in a harsh North Atlantic environment frequented by sea ice and icebergs. Meeting the operation challenges poised by the Grand Banks ice and sea environment has required Terra Nova to set a number of design precedents, including quickly disconnectable mooring system, open glory holes for subsea well protection from scouring icebergs, and a very challenging riser system design.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
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