MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926597169 · doi:10.2516/ogst:1989029/pdf

Comportement comparé de conduites rigides et flexibles ensouillées au voisinage de sols gelés

2006· article· fr· W6926597169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJettyBeaufort seaPhase (matter)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\n Au cours des dernières années, les activités pétrolières à terre comme en mer, tant en Alaska qu'au Canada, se sont maintenues à un niveau raisonnable. En octobre 1987, le premier champ pétrolier offshore a été mis en exploitation en mer de Beaufort (Endicott). Bien que l'industrie soit principalement dans une phase d'exploration, des besoins vont progressivement se manifester en matière de lignes de collecte et d'injection. La détermination du tracé de conduites en offshore arctique ainsi que leur dimensionnement nécessite la prise en compte de facteurs très spécifiques : le raclage des glaces dérivantes impose une profondeur minimum d'ensouillage, ce qui accroît, malgré l'isolation des conduites, la proportion de chaleur communiquée au pergélisol (ou permafrost) en dégel : les tassements différentiels résultant de la variabilité de composition des sols peuvent provoquer des déformations, voire des instabilités des conduites tout à fait inacceptables. Il est assez intuitif de penser que les conduites flexibles accommoderont plus facilement les mouvements de sol que les rigides. L'objet de cet article est de proposer une méthode d'analyse assez souple permettant de jauger facilement cet avantage.\n

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207