MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206843105 · doi:10.1115/omae2021-63418

Iceberg Load Software Update Using 2019 Iceberg Profile Dataset

2021· article· en· W3206843105 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Stuckey, Mark Fuglem, Adel Younan, Hamid Shayanfar, Yujian Huang, Lei Liu, Tony King

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergSubseaMarine engineeringGeodesyData collectionSeabedGeologyEngineeringOceanographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Iceberg Loads Software (ILS) was developed initially to determine design iceberg loads for the Hebron Gravity Base Structure (GBS). The ILS framework has since been adapted for assessing iceberg loads on other structures such as the West White Rose Platform, subsea protection structures, pipelines laid on the seabed and floating production structures (spars and FPSOs). When the ILS was developed, the available iceberg geometry dataset (collected in the 1980s) was relatively limited, which required certain assumptions (i.e., flat wall interaction) and parametrizations (i.e., length distribution, length/draft/mass relationships, eccentricity, etc.) in the formulation of the interaction model. Renewed iceberg profile collection began in 2012, with ongoing improvements in the data collection methodology such that, of the 200 iceberg profiles collected from 2012 onwards, 134 were collected in 2019. The profile data were collected using LiDAR for the iceberg sail and multibeam sonar for the keel. The ILS has been updated using the recent three dimensional (3D) profiles, and a comparison of original versus updated iceberg load distributions for a generic structure show a decrease in loads. Updated ILS loads are compared with another iceberg load analysis tool that directly incorporates iceberg profile data rather than relying on some of the assumptions and parametrizations used in the original ILS formulation. This comparison shows some differences, particularly for extreme loads, which are the subject of on-going investigation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.016

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207