MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4300064304 · doi:10.5957/icetech-2006-111

Arctic Escape, Evacuation, and Rescue – Past, Present, and Future

2006· article· en· W4300064304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank G. Bercha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterimComputer sciencePort (circuit theory)AeronauticsArcticEngineeringSystems engineeringOceanographyGeographyMechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Escape, evacuation, and rescue plans, systems, and procedures form an integral part of the emergency response capability of any manned installation or vessel. Whether operating in open or ice covered waters, a reliable set of processes for abandoning the installation and moving, possibly following an interim relatively safe residence (e.g., in a safety craft), to a safe haven such as an icebreaker, port, or other vessel or installation, is necessary to provide adequate safety for personnel and in many cases also to satisfy regulations. Although there is no distinction in the level of safety that should be afforded in open or ice covered waters, the development of EER for the latter has fallen far behind in technology, regulation, and analysis even though active operations in ice have been ongoing now for many decades. In this paper, a review of past, current, and developing technologies, analyses, and regulations and standards is given. Past practices dating back to the early days in the Beaufort Sea are quite primitive and fortunately were never tested in a major catastrophe. Considerable attention is being given to use of current developments, including dedicated Arctic systems such as ARKTOS, semi-dedicated systems such as Seascape, and numerous conceptual designs. Supporting multi-disciplinary research including full scale tests, model tests, and computer simulation supports this new technology development. In addition, current standards have been developed by Transport Canada for EER in ice, and ISO WG8 is working on a more general standard for the same purpose. The future is promising: ice resistant lifeboats or TEMPSC’s (IRT), various launching devices to deposit crafts safely in or on the ice, and novel methods of evacuation and rescue, discussed in the paper, are under consideration. Following a review of past, current, and future developments in technological, analytical and research and regulatory areas, the paper identifies the major outstanding problems and makes recommendations for the most promising solutions.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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