MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414487010 · doi:10.1017/jog.2025.10093

Evaluation of ice island ‘footloose’ calving events using finite element analysis

2025· article· en· W4414487010 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek Mueller, G.B. Crocker, Mahmud Sazidy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaCarleton University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationUniversity of CambridgeArcticNet
KeywordsFinite element methodSubmarine pipelineIce calvingFracture (geology)Sea iceBendingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionIce caps

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ice islands, massive tabular icebergs, are known to fracture as they drift. The footloose mechanism occurs when a large protuberance, known as a ram, develops along the submerged edge of the ice island and induces a buoyancy-driven bending stress. This study investigates the relationship between rams and footloose fracture using finite element models of ice islands with simulated underwater rams. Geospatial polygons of ice islands, derived from remote sensing imagery, were used to create three-dimensional shapes of ice islands at two thicknesses and with various ram sizes. Then, the location of maximum stress and fractures were predicted using finite element analysis (FEA) and the results were compared to remote sensing observations of the actual fractured pieces that calved from each of the 26 modelled ice islands. Accurate simulations of calving were achieved when a synthesized ram was placed along the ice island edge where the calving was observed. An empirical model was developed to predict the magnitude of stress from various ram sizes and shapes. The predictive ability of this empirical model suggests that ice island calving models can be improved and combined with drift forecasting models to help mitigate risks to offshore infrastructure and seafaring vessels.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207