MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4299335024 · doi:10.5957/icetech-2012-149

The Titanic Disaster and Ice Mechanics: Completing the Picture

2012· article· en· W4299335024 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Jordaan, Philippa Gosine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRivetHullBrittlenessStructural failureStructural engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringForensic engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the Titanic disaster occurred 100 years ago, explanations of the failure rely heavily on studies of the structural failure (failure of the rivets, brittle fracture of the side plate, ... for example). Very little attention has been paid to how the ice delivered the required force. Background to the disaster is reviewed and in particular the records of experiences of passengers showing that the impact involved a “slight jar” or a “little vibration”. These indicate small global loading but not excluding the possibility of high local loading. The construction of the Titanic is described, and in particular the overlapping plates connected by rivets. Evidence based on ultrasonic scans and calculations of the flow of water into the vessel suggests that the failure was associated with a series of slits in the hull, with a total area of about 12 square feet. Recent explorations into the strength of the rivets are described. The main focus of the paper is then introduced: the formation of high pressure zones in ice compressive failure. The total load in these tests may be of the order of several MN. The high-pressure zones are characterized by a localization of damage in the ice resulting in the formation of a distinct layer of microstructurally modified material. Pressures from the ramming of ice features in ship rams are analyzed, and it is again shown that forces associated with quite small areas may be of the order of several MN. When compared to the strength of the rivets, it is clear that enough force can be generated to cause slits of the kind deduced from the evidence. The results are also consistent with the observed small motions of the ship during impact. The Titanic was not designed for interaction with ice and avoidance would have been a wise course of action. It seems inappropriate to suggest that poor rivet construction was the cause of the sinking. The main cause was the high local loads involved in ice-structure interaction.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→