MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412277443

Testing the Water: Applying BIMCO AUTOSHIPMAN to Remotely Controlled Ships, Cyber incidents and Events of Force Majeure

2021· article· en· W4412277443 on OpenAlexaff
Asli Arda

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Strategy and Technology
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForce majeureAeronauticsComputer securityEngineeringComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The full spectrum of the impact that contemporary technology pertains to remote control and automation on the management of ships that are equipped with such technology is unknown for the moment. However, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the world’s largest membership organisation for shipowners, is developing a standard contract, AUTOSHIPMAN, which establishes the ground rules for allocation of tasks that concern the management of remotely controlled and autonomous ships. This standard contract contains both a cyber security clause and a force majeure clause. Cyber security being a modern concept, its implementation may be evaluated in the light of force majeure, so as to test whether they interplay. This research applies a ‘three-pillar test’ to examine whether it is possible for cyber incidents to fall into the scope of force majeure and aims to provide a well-rounded interpretation of the relevant provisions of this new standard contract before its full implementation.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen)Same topicMilitary Strategy and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207