MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558037389 · doi:10.4043/27385-ms

Improved Equations for the Actions of Thick Level Ice on Sloping Platforms

2016· article· en· W2558037389 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)DocumentationProcess (computing)Marine engineeringWork (physics)Computer scienceScale (ratio)Event (particle physics)Matching (statistics)ArcticEngineeringGeologyMathematicsStatisticsGeographyMechanical engineeringProgramming languageOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In ISO19906 (2010) (Arctic Offshore Structures) specific algorithms are provided for level ice loads on sloping structures; they are based on the separate work of Ralston and Croasdale. These methods were developed decades ago and comparisons with full scale data, especially from Confederation Bridge, suggest that certain idealizations can be improved; more importantly that they may be over-predicting the measured loads. For these reasons it was decided to critically review the existing Croasdale et al algorithm (as specified in ISO) and update it based on learnings from Confederation Bridge, other experience and new ideas. During the study, over 50 ice interaction events at Confederation Bridge were chosen as geometrically similar to thick ice acting on an Arctic structure. The interaction process and relevant parameters (such as ride-up height) were documented in detail and the measured loads compared with predictions for each event. The model, as currently specified in ISO, generally over-predicted by a factor of about 1.6. The model was improved in the course of the work; especially the physics of breaking and ride-up. The new model is capable of matching the Bridge measurements without bias. This paper presents the final methodology and equations which resulted from the study which was conducted over several years and resulted in an extensive report and documentation. The equations are closed form and can be applied relatively simply. Examples of using the method are provided. A more comprehensive description of the complete study is given in KRCA (2014) and Croasdale et al. (2016a).

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.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.193 · 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