Report of a group set up to review wavemakers and wavemaking technology in OCRE facilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents the results of a review of the wavemakers and wavemaking technology at OCRE. The review was carried out between April 2013 and February 2014 by a group of eight people with different responsibilities who shared an interest in waves and wave generation. Issues addressed by the Group included what needed to be done to ensure the wavemakers will continue to operate reliably and to meet the needs of clients in the future. The review considered wavemaking hardware, control systems and software for wave generation and analysis of the results. The need for expertise in the field was also included. Problems or limitations to capabilities in these areas were identified, together with the impact or importance of the problem, options for solutions and pros and cons for each option. The steps required to resolve outstanding issues were documented and where possible the preferred option identified The review led to the following recommendations: Replace the wavemaker in the Towing Tank; Address the rustout issues in the MWB; Replace the actuator rod end bearings in the drive system in the OEB; Replace the hydraulic drives with electric drives and simplify the linkages in the OEB; Bring the control systems for all OCRE wave generation facilities to the same high level; Acquire software for wave generation to include 2nd order waves and active wave absorption; Fit wave probes to each segment in the OEB to enable active wave absorption; Create a new position (or re-assign an existing staff member) to provide direct support to the operation of wavemakers in the facilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it