MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301375995 · doi:10.5957/icetech-2014-169

Assessing the Risks of Icebergs Impacting the Topsides of a Gravity Based Structure

2014· article· en· W4301375995 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Stuckey, Adel Younan, Jonathon Bruce, Mark Fuglem

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Safety and Impact Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergCaissonMonte Carlo methodMarine engineeringEngineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringOceanographyMathematicsStatisticsSea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the governing design aspects of a bottom founded structure on the Grand Banks is the impact of icebergs. A Gravity Base Structure (GBS) caisson will be designed to withstand iceberg impacts, but the platform topsides are not designed to withstand iceberg impacts. Therefore, the topsides structure must be designed in a manner such that the specified target safety levels set by ISO 19906:2010 are met. This paper presents an analytical model to estimate the probability of an iceberg impacting the topsides based on a three-dimensional model of the GBS caisson and topsides, including the extent of topsides overhang relative to the caisson and the caisson size. The impact model is implemented using a Monte Carlo simulation to ensure the risk of icebergs impacting the topsides satisfies ISO 19906:2010 requirements.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicTransportation Safety and Impact AnalysisFrench-language works237,207