MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386971056 · doi:10.1115/omae2023-101443

Development of Ice-Load Algorithm for Real-Time Feedback During Simulator Training

2023· article· en· W4386971056 on OpenAlexaff
Logan P. Miller, Bruce Quinton, J. Christopher Soper, Brian Veitch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)CollisionSimulationBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceMarine engineeringLimit (mathematics)EngineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of simulator training for ice navigation is becoming increasingly widespread, in part due to the difficulty, risk, and expense of providing training on vessels in ice-covered waters. Simulator training offers the opportunity for comparatively inexpensive and low risk training for novices in ice-covered conditions. For effective ship operation, it is important to use a vessel to its capacity in ice, without exceeding this capacity and causing damage to the structure. To this end, an algorithm was developed that detects ship-ice collisions, calculates the ice-loads on the structure, and provides the operator with feedback in terms of how close the load is to exceeding the safe capacity of the structure. At present, the algorithm is ship specific in that its development uses finite element analysis for a specific ship to assess the ship’s structural response for a given ice thickness, strength, and contact geometry, to determine the maximum energy at which a safe collision can occur. This safe collision energy limit can then be implemented into simulator training to give real-time feedback to participants about the safety of ship-ice collisions as they occur. An experimental campaign to test the effect of the feedback for simulator training, as well as its utility as an aid onboard the bridge of ships, is proposed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207