MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947937326 · doi:10.4224/8895364

A state-of-the-art review on ice modeling methodologies employed in refrigerated ice tanks

2007· article· en· W6947937326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceArcticArctic ice packIce formationLead (geology)Iceberg

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent exploration of natural resources and their transportation in the arctic or sub-arctic regions and the increase of traffic through the Northern Sea Route (NSR) have stimulated new structural concepts and ship designs. To evaluate the design and performance of these structures and ships, model tests in an ice tank are the preferred evaluation tool. The Maritime Ocean Engineering Research Institute (MOERI) is building the first ice tank in Korea to meet the increasing research and development challenges and opportunities arisen from the recent demands. This study mainly reviews the state-of-the-art ice modeling techniques and methodologies used in existing refrigerated model basins to assist their adaptation to the new ice tank. The physical and mechanical properties of different types of model ice and their scalability are critically assessed. Comparisons of mechanical properties from sea ice and model ice are presented and discussed. This report also briefly discusses scaling issues for ice model tests, test methodologies for ship performances in ice, and the ice testing facilities at IOT.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.138 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207