MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391783115 · doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2024.102337

Generalized structure of the group method of data handling for modeling iceberg drafts

2024· article· en· W4391783115 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 Modelling · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergGroup (periodic table)Computer scienceGeologyClimatologyPhysicsSea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Iceberg draft was modeled by the generalized structure of the group method of data handling. • Iceberg width ratio and the iceberg shape factor were the most influencing inputs. • The magnitude of iceberg drafts grew by increasing the value of the iceberg width. • A GS-GMDH-based equation was presented to estimate the iceberg drafts. The iceberg draft prediction is vital to mitigate the collision risk of deep keel icebergs with the seafloor-founded infrastructures, including the subsea pipelines, wellheads , hydrocarbon loading equipment, and communication cables crossing the Arctic and subarctic areas since the drifting icebergs may gouge the ocean floor and the physical and operational integrity of the submarine structures would be threatened. In this study, the iceberg drafts were simulated using the generalized structure of the group method of data handling (GS-GMDH) algorithm for the first time. The parameters affecting the iceberg drafts were determined, and five GS-GMDH models comprising GS-GMDH 1 to GS-GMDH 5 were developed utilizing those parameters governing. A dataset comprising 161 distinct case studies measured in the most significant field investigations of iceberg characteristics was generated, and the GS-GMDH models were trained through 60 % of the data, the rest of the data (i.e., 40 %) were considered for the GS-GMDH models’ validation. By defining different scenarios, the most accurate GS-GMDH model and the most important input parameters were identified. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the iceberg width ratio ( W / H ) and the iceberg shape factor ( S f ) were identified as the most influencing input parameters. The comparison between the performance of the premium GS-GMDH model and the group method of data handling (GMDH), artificial neural network (ANN) algorithms, and the empirical models proved that the GS-GMDH model simulated the iceberg drafts with the highest level of precision and correlation along with the lowest degree of complexity. Based on the partial derivative sensitivity analysis (PDSA), the magnitude of iceberg drafts grew by increasing the value of the iceberg width and iceberg length. Ultimately, a GS-GMDH-based equation was presented to estimate the iceberg drafts for practical applications, particularly in the early stages of iceberg management projects and engineering designs.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.207 · 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