MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Turning and stopping of a ship with twin Z-drive thrusters

2024· article· en· W4390814517 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrustPropulsionRange (aeronautics)CrashAzimuthMarine engineeringAerospace engineeringEngineeringTurning radiusAeronauticsSimulationComputer sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The superior manoeuvrability of Z-drive equipped vessels is well known, though the comprehensive manoeuvring characteristics are seldom quantified. This paper presents the results of a sea trial on a 55 m ship equipped with twin Z-drive propulsion. Three manoeuvre types were conducted: turning circles, effective turning tests, and crash stops. Each were done for a range of ship speeds and thruster azimuth angles. For the turning circles, steering modes using both a single thruster and dual thrusters were also examined. The effective turning tests were used to determine the best or best-compromise thruster angles to achieve a high rate-of-turn with the least loss of ship speed. The crash stop tests investigated two different stopping methods: full reverse thrust and stopping by swinging the thrusters to 90°. • Manoeuvring sea trials were performed on a ship with twin Z-drive thrusters. • The data was analysed to quantify the turning and stopping metrics of the ship. • Results show performance changes based on helm configuration and stopping method.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.175 · 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