MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6891538505 · doi:10.4224/12328839

Loads on Ship Hulls: Workshop on North American Experience

2002· report· en· W6891538505 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2002
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Wood Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Data collectionCompleteness (order theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A group of 20 people met for two days in a workshop format to review the state-of-art on ice loads on ship hulls. Measurement methodologies as well as the results of about 15 field trials in which Canada and/or the United States played a major role were reviewed, and the completeness and availability of the data assessed. Needs for ice loads R&D were reviewed and gaps in data and analysis identified. Future directions for R&D and priorities were identified. In addition to this record of the Workshop, presentations and comments by participants are included in 20 files in pdf format on an included CD.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
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
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→