Ongoing Research on Herding Agents for In Situ Burning in Arctic Waters: Laboratory and Test Tank Studies on Windows-of-Opportunity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Researching the use of herding agents to contain and thicken oil slicks for in situ burning in Arctic waters continues under the auspices of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology-Joint Industry Programme. In 2014/2015 laboratory and test tank studies were conducted on defining potentials for effective herder use. The objective of these experiments was to determine the window-of-opportunity for two commercially available herders (ThickSlick 6535 and OP 40) to contract slicks of weathered oils to ignitable thicknesses. The experiments involved a range of crude oils that were quantitatively evaporated and emulsified (ANS, Endicott, Grane and Terra Nova). Small and medium-scale herding experiments (1-m2 quiescent pans, Dynamic Film Performance tests on a Rocking Shaker, 10-m2 quiescent pools and tests in an indoor wind/wave tank) were carried out at the SL Ross laboratory in Ottawa, ON. Larger-scale tests were conducted in 28.5-m2 quiescent refrigerated pools at the US Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) in Hanover, NH. The purpose of these experiments was to determine at what point (defined by oil type, evaporation and emulsion water) the herders could no longer contract the slicks to an ignitable thickness in cold ice-free water and slush ice. Some laboratory tests involved burning the herded slicks under a fume hood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it