MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558233976 · doi:10.4043/27493-ms

Investigation of Iceberg Hydrodynamics

2016· article· en· W2558233976 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 institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergSubseaTowingComputational fluid dynamicsMarine engineeringSubmarine pipelineGeologyArcticMechanicsComputer scienceOceanographyEngineeringPhysicsSea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As offshore oil and gas developments increase in northern areas such as the Grand Banks and the Arctic region, the operators face challenging conditions. Icebergs are among one of the challenges for both surface and subsea structures if they drift toward those facilities. Prediction of the iceberg drift and dynamic response to any towing process requires a good understanding of hydrodynamic effects induced by currents, waves, tow lines, etc. A reasonable estimation of added mass and RAOs are other prominent parameters required when modeling iceberg dynamics is of interest. Having access to the high resolution full 3D iceberg profiles collected in 2012 (Younan et al. 2016), it is now possible to investigate iceberg hydrodynamics using numerical and experimental methods. This paper presents an overview of the numerical simulation results and lessons learned during various hydrodynamic simulations such as decay analysis, towing, and iceberg-structure interaction. The Diffraction Model and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) are the tools utilized in these simulations. The conclusions provide key findings and suggestions for future analysis of iceberg hydrodynamics.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.179 · 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