MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4300109043 · doi:10.5957/icetech-2014-161

Characteristics of Field-scale High Pressure Zones during Non-simultaneous Failure of Thin First-year Sea Ice

2014· article· en· W4300109043 on OpenAlexaff
Rocky Taylor, Martín Richard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpallSea iceGeologyScale (ratio)IndentationMarine engineeringComputer scienceClimatologyEngineeringStructural engineeringGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For temperate ice regions, the guidance provided by current design codes regarding ice load estimation for thin ice is unclear, particularly for local pressure estimation. During the non-simultaneous failure of ice under compression, spalling fracture localizes contact into high pressure zones (hpzs), through which the majority of loads are transmitted. Much of our present understanding of hpzs comes from inferences made from the analysis of pressure panel data collected during medium-scale field tests or full-scale measurements on ships or structures. During medium-scale field indentation tests conducted by the Japan Ocean Industries Association (JOIA) from 1996-2000, tactile pressure sensors were also deployed. The JOIA dataset provide detailed information about pressure distributions at a sufficiently high resolution so as to allow for the identification and tracking of individual hpzs throughout an interaction. Given their importance in the transmission of loads during an ice-structure interaction, understanding the birth, evolution and death of individual hpzs is seen as being an important direction both for guiding fundamental studies of ice mechanics and also for guiding the development of new ice load models. Recent analysis of these tactile sensor data has led to the development of an empirical hpz-based model which can be applied to model local and global pressures for thin ice conditions (Taylor and Richard, 2014). From this analysis, new insights into the nature of hpzs for thin first year sea ice during non-simultaneous failure have resulted. In the present paper, an overview is provided of analysis techniques used to extract information about individual hpzs from the tactile sensor dataset, as well as the characteristics of these hpzs. Aspects discussed include spatial and temporal characteristics of high pressure zones, as well as pressure and geometric attributes. While observations of the shape of spatial distributions and total contact area covered by hpzs are consistent with previous observations (line-type distributions with total contact area on the order of 10% of the nominal interaction area), these results indicate that individual hpzs are smaller and more densely distributed than indicated by previous analyses based solely on pressure panel data. The implications of this finding in terms of scale effects and ice load modeling are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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