MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046508851

Canadian Arctic Shipping Risk Assessment System

2017· article· en· W3046508851 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ivana Kubat, Lawrence Charlebois, Richard Burcher, Philippe Lamontagne, David J. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk assessmentArcticThe arcticEnvironmental scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental resource managementBusinessComputer scienceOceanographyComputer securityGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Research Council of Canada has developed an integrated risk assessment tool called Canadian Arctic Shipping Risk Assessment System (CASRAS). This system has been created in response to the opening of the Arctic and sub-Arctic to industrial exploration and marine operations, which was largely triggered by the decline of sea ice. The increase in northern activities has created the urgent need for rapid access to disparate information from multiple sources, and the ability to plan voyages in compliance with the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code), which entered into force on January 1, 2017. CASRAS brings together the best available environmental and regulatory data, and documents experiences and knowledge of mariners and Northern community members. This information supports decision making by the shipping industry, offshore operators and government departments. Users can easily retrieve data that ensures safe, responsible and economically viable operations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.014

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207