Determination of Parameters Affecting the Estimation of Iceberg Draft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent offshore oil and gas loading facilities developed in the Arctic area have led to a considerable awareness of the iceberg draft approximation, where deep keel icebergs may gouge the ocean floor, and these submarine infrastructures would be damaged in the shallower waters. Developing reliable solutions to estimate the iceberg draft requires a profound understanding of the problem’s dominant parameters. As such, the dimensionless groups of the parameters affecting the iceberg draft estimation were determined for the first time in the present study. Using the dimensionless groups recognized and the linear regression (LR) analysis, nine LR models (i.e., LR 1 to LR 9) were developed and then validated using a comprehensive dataset, which has been constructed in this study. A sensitivity analysis distinguished the premium LR models and important dimensionless groups. The best LR model, as a function of all dimensionless parameters, was able to estimate the iceberg draft with the highest level of precision and correlation along with the lowest degree of complexity. The ratio of iceberg length to iceberg height as the “iceberg length ratio” and the ratio of iceberg width to iceberg height as the “iceberg width ratio” was detected as the important dimensionless groups in the estimation of the iceberg draft. An uncertainty analysis demonstrated that the best LR model was biased towards underestimating the iceberg drafts. The premium LR model outperformed the previous empirical models. Ultimately, a set of LR-based relationships were derived for estimating the iceberg drafts for practical engineering applications, e.g., the early stages of the iceberg management projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".