MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bayesian Network risk model for assessing oil spill recovery effectiveness in the ice-covered Northern Baltic Sea

2019· article· en· W2912699299 on OpenAlexafffund
Liangliang Lu, Floris Goerlandt, Osiris A. Valdez Banda, Pentti Kujala, Anders Höglund, Lars Arneborg

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Pollution Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeVetenskapsrådetAcademy of FinlandOcean Frontier InstituteSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasEuropean Commission
KeywordsOil spillEnvironmental scienceSea iceBaltic seaBayesian networkArctic ice packOceanographyEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Northern Baltic Sea, as one of the few areas with busy ship traffic in ice-covered waters, is a typical sea area exposed to risk of ship accidents and oil spills in ice conditions. Therefore, oil spill capability for response and recovery in this area is required to reduce potential oil spill effects. Currently, there are no integrated, scenario-based models for oil spill response and recovery in ice conditions. This paper presents a Bayesian Network (BN) model for assessing oil spill recovery effectiveness, focusing on mechanical recovery. It aims to generate holistic understanding and insights about the oil spill-to-recovery phase, and to estimate oil recovery effectiveness in representative winter conditions. A number of test scenarios are shown and compared to get insight into the impact resulting from different oil types, spill sizes and winter conditions. The strength of evidence of the model is assessed in line with the adopted risk perspective.

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)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Pollution BulletinSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207