MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2893660978 · doi:10.1115/omae2018-78583

Station-Keeping Trials in Ice: Overview of Ice Management Support

2018· article· en· W2893660978 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Neville, Erik Almkvist, Francesco Scibilia, Joakim K. Lindvall, Pavel Liferov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsAker Arctic (Canada)
FundersStatoil
KeywordsSea iceEnvironmental scienceIce formationMooringPlan (archaeology)Remote sensingMarine engineeringEngineeringMeteorologyGeologyOceanographyGeographyAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2017, Statoil performed station-keeping trials in drifting ice in the Bay of Bothnia. The anchor handling tug supply vessel Magne Viking, performed station keeping operations in various ice conditions, including managed and non-managed ice. Physical ice management was used to manage the approaching ice to a target condition suitable for the station keeping tests, and to enable other essential operations including deployment and retrieval of the mooring spread and other equipment. Given the objective of the trials, physical ice management activities were performed in such a way to allow investigation of various relevant parameters that influence the managed ice condition. Additional tests were also performed for the sole purpose to assist with validation of Aker Arctic’s ice management software “AIMS”, including tests designed to estimate the performance of the vessels under different ice conditions. This paper focuses on the physical ice management operations performed by the ice management vessel Tor Viking (TV) during the Station Keeping Trials in ice (SKT). Also included is a discussion on how AIMS was used in the planning phase and how simulations compared with actual observations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→