MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892707258 · doi:10.1109/joe.2018.2866317

Reference-Point Algorithms for Active Motion Compensation of Towed Bodies

2018· article· en· W2892707258 on OpenAlexafffund
Clark Calnan, Robert Bauer, Rishad A. Irani

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie UniversityCarleton University
KeywordsWinchCompensation (psychology)Point (geometry)Motion compensationControl theory (sociology)Motion (physics)EngineeringComputer scienceAlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active heave compensation systems are typically single-degree-of-freedom systems that operate vertically to attenuate the vertical effects of wave motion. To apply compensation to towed bodies, which experience significant multiple-degree-of-freedom disturbances, a generalized motion compensation system using a “reference-point algorithm” is required that determines the length of a tow cable that should be reeled in or reeled out by an on-board winch system in response to external wave motion. This paper proposes, implements, and assesses four different reference-point algorithm approaches in both simulation and experimental environments. Of the proposed reference-point algorithms, the method that directly accounts for the tow cable angle proved to be most effective in both simulation and experimentation. It was found that there was little improvement between real-time measurements of the tow cable angle and a constant nominal tow cable angle-indicating a potential cost saving opportunity through the avoidance of real-time sheave-angle measurement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Oceanic EngineeringSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207