MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998849596 · doi:10.1061/9780784482629.045

Canadian Design Requirements for Marine LNG Facilities

2019· article· zh· W2998849596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Eskijian, Prerna Jain

Bibliographic record

VenuePorts 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languagezh
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Offshore Engineering Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefied natural gasPipeline transportMooringFossil fuelEngineeringNatural gasEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringMarine engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an overview of the new Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Group document for design of marine structures associated with liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities, Design Requirements for Marine Structures Associated with LNG Facilities (DRMS) (EXP 276.1-2015). The CSA Group has a well-known reference for LNG facilities in Canada entitled CSA Z276 Liquified Natural Gas—Production, Storage, and Handling. However, the document provides minimal guidance for LNG marine terminals. An effort was started by the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission (BCOGC) to fill in the gaps and develop standards for the marine structures associated with LNG facilities. The document is a result of team effort by several Canadian and U.S. engineers representing various governmental agencies and consulting firms. The document addresses the structural, mooring, and berthing requirements of fixed marine structures. In addition, this new document includes specific structural requirements, with reference to Canadian, European, and American codes, metocean and seismic criteria, pipelines, geotechnical recommendations, and the tsunami potential. The document is currently used by BCOGC in British Columbia and has wide applicability outside of Canada.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.010

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePorts 2019Same topicMarine and Offshore Engineering StudiesFrench-language works237,207