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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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