Arctic Offshore Escape, Evacuation, and Rescue Standards and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic Escape, Evacuation, and Rescue (EER) is receiving more attention with the current resurgence of interest in Arctic offshore hydrocarbon reserves, marine tourism and shortening marine transportation routes. Since 2000, Transport Canada supported the Arctic EER research project for which the second author’s company has been the lead contractor. The research conducted under this program resulted in the development of Canadian performance-based standards for offshore petroleum installations and a computer model capable of assessing the reliability and performance of EER processes. The ISO, under Working Group 8, developed a Final Draft International Standard addressing Arctic Offshore Structures which is expected to be published in late-2010. The Standard addresses design requirements and assessments for Arctic offshore structures used by the petroleum and natural gas industries worldwide to help ensure that appropriate reliability levels are achieved for manned and unmanned offshore structures, regardless of the type of structure. The EER provisions of the Standard are intended to promote the successful escape from the incident, subsequent evacuation from the installation (emergency or precautionary evacuation), and the ultimate rescue of installation personnel. The EER provisions are performance-based. The Standard specifies design requirements and also provides background to and guidance on the use of the document.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".