MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557830500 · doi:10.4043/27470-ms

Applications of Iceberg Profiling Data to Improve Iceberg Management Success

2016· article· en· W2557830500 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathon Bruce, Adel Younan, Andrew Macneill

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergTowingGeologyMarine engineeringEngineeringOceanographySea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd. (HMDC) sponsored a R&D initiative in 2012 with the objective of obtaining high quality three dimensional iceberg profiles off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. The three dimensional iceberg profiles collected during that program have been used in this work to illustrate the potential benefits to iceberg management which could be realized if towing vessels were outfitted with the equipment required to obtain three dimensional iceberg shapes quickly in the field. Tools have been developed under the further financial support of HMDC to assess the stability of the iceberg in order to identify the preferential towing directions to reduce the likelihood of rolling the iceberg during a tow. A tool has also been developed to allow the user to assess the local shape of the iceberg relative to the towing net to help avoid unfavorable iceberg shapes and slopes. The iceberg shapes have also been used to assess the current iceberg towing net design with recommendations for potential improvements to reduce net slippage during a tow.

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)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Technology ConferenceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207