Probabilistic Approach to Determine Combined Sea Ice and Wave Actions
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 Design of offshore structures for arctic and subarctic regions requires consideration of wave, wind and ice actions. If individual actions are not mutually exclusive, then combined actions also need consideration. ISO 19906 recommends that, when possible, extreme level combined actions should be determined based on the joint probability distribution of the actions. As an alternative, ISO 19906 provides a framework where a user can determine principal and companion extreme actions independently, and sum these with calibrated combination factors applied. While the combination factors in ISO 19906 were calibrated over a range of conditions and platforms, site-specific information is not taken into account when applying the method. In this paper, a procedure is presented for determining extreme level combined actions for sea ice and waves based on site-specific sea ice and wave information, accounting for the joint probability distribution of the actions. The procedure is demonstrated for an example fixed structure on the Grand Banks off Canada's east coast. The results are compared with extreme actions determined using the ISO 19906 combination factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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