A Fuzzy‐Based Risk Assessment Framework for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Under‐Ice Missions
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
The use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) for various scientific, commercial, and military applications has become more common with maturing technology and improved accessibility. One relatively new development lies in the use of AUVs for under-ice marine science research in the Antarctic. The extreme environment, ice cover, and inaccessibility as compared to open-water missions can result in a higher risk of loss. Therefore, having an effective assessment of risks before undertaking any Antarctic under-ice missions is crucial to ensure an AUV's survival. Existing risk assessment approaches predominantly focused on the use of historical fault log data of an AUV and elicitation of experts' opinions for probabilistic quantification. However, an AUV program in its early phases lacks historical data and any assessment of risk may be vague and ambiguous. In this article, a fuzzy-based risk assessment framework is proposed for quantifying the risk of AUV loss under ice. The framework uses the knowledge, prior experience of available subject matter experts, and the widely used semiquantitative risk assessment matrix, albeit in a new form. A well-developed example based on an upcoming mission by an ISE-explorer class AUV is presented to demonstrate the application and effectiveness of the proposed framework. The example demonstrates that the proposed fuzzy-based risk assessment framework is pragmatically useful for future under-ice AUV deployments. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates the validity of the proposed method.
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) | 0.001 | 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