MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4301045345 · doi:10.5957/icetech-2012-134

Double Pendulum Dynamic Impact Test Set-up for Ice-grillage Collision

2012· article· en· W4301045345 on OpenAlexaff
Md Shah Alam, Claude Daley, Bruce Colbourne, G Hermanski, Bob Gagnon, Steve Bruneau, Geoff Clarke, Bruce Quinton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPendulumDeflection (physics)Structural engineeringCollisionEngineeringDynamic testingFrame (networking)ImpactImpact energyDouble pendulumComputer scienceMechanical engineeringPhysicsNonlinear systemInverted pendulum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper details the development of a double pendulum dynamic impact test apparatus to study the behavior of collisions between ice and structural grillages, typical of those used in ship structures. Direct collisions between ice and ships involve high impact energy and can cause substantial damage to the ship structure. In order to apply this type of impact energy in a controlled and repeatable way, a double pendulum dynamic impact test frame has been developed. The frame consists of two pendulums: one to carry an ice sample and the other to carry a test grillage structure. The overall size of the apparatus is 4m × 5m × 8m. The live weight of each pendulum is approximately 3000 kg. In operation, the pendulums will be lifted and then released simultaneously to impact each other in a vertical position. The frame is instrumented to measure the impact force and deflection of the grillage.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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