MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200570595 · doi:10.5750/ijme.v152ia3.832

NAVAL SHIP STABILITY GUIDELINES: DEVELOPING A SHARED VISION FOR NAVAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT

2021· article· en· W4200570595 on OpenAlexaff
D. Perrault, Thomas A. Hughes, Steve Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Maritime Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMaritime Security and History
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewSoftware deploymentAeronauticsContext (archaeology)ProcurementOperations researchStability (learning theory)Computer scienceEngineeringLawComputer securityPolitical scienceBusinessHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface combatants are required to operate in conditions of high military threat and be capable of deployment to any area of conflict or crisis at any time. This requirement calls for the vessel and crew to be capable of safely contending with the full range of environmental conditions that may be encountered while pursuing their primary objective. Achieving and maintaining this capability is strongly influenced by the application of naval stability standards, many of which have a common origin, based on experiences from the World War II and before. Although such standards have apparently served the navies admirably over many years, there are many reasons to question their limitations and applicability in the context of modern ship design and procurement. This paper presents the efforts to date of the Naval Stability Standards Working Group to investigate the relationship between existing intact stability standards and capsize risk with respect to frigate forms.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Maritime EngineeringSame topicMaritime Security and HistoryFrench-language works237,207