Subsea Risk Update Using High Resolution Iceberg Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current practice for protecting wellheads and associated subsea facilities from icebergs on the Grand Banks is an Excavated Drill Centre (EDC), which is simply an excavation in the seabed in which wellheads and associated facilities are placed. Free-floating icebergs simply drift over an EDC, with the exception of those that roll as they pass over an EDC and increase draft sufficiently to enter. The risk from gouging icebergs entering an EDC is a function of the clearance between the surrounding undisturbed seabed and the top of the facilities in the EDC, and the distribution of gouging iceberg keel penetration depths. A field program conducted in Bonavista Bay in 2015 was used to estimate iceberg rolling rates, and an analysis of high resolution iceberg profile data collected in 2012 was used to determine the associated distribution of iceberg draft changes that occur due to rolling, and thus the rate at which iceberg keels penetrate an EDC due to rolling events. Modeled iceberg grounding rates and iceberg scour data from the Jeanne d’Arc were used to estimate the rate at which gouging icebergs enter EDCs. Iceberg gouge data from the Jeanne d’Arc and a dynamic time-step iceberg simulation using the 2012 iceberg profile data were used to determine the impact rate for facilities in the EDC as a function of the distance between the midline and the top of the facilities (clearance). The analysis addresses some of the conservatisms in the current approach, allowing for reduced EDC excavation depths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".