MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948151255 · doi:10.4224/8894842

Summary of seakeeping experiments carried out on CCGA Atlantic Swell Model IOT651

2005· report· en· W6948151255 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeakeepingSwellShip motionsHullHeading (navigation)Wave heightBallastFlexibility (engineering)Surge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Atlantic Swell is a 35' inshore fishing vessel. The vessel was built in St. Jones Within, Newfoundland. As part of the National Research Council's Safer Fishing Vessels project, full-scale seakeeping trials as well as physical model tests were performed on this vessel. The data obtained over the course of these experiments was used to determine various vessel motions in a variety of vessel heading and speeds. The results from each set of trials were compared to determine the correlation between the two tests. Overall, there was an acceptable level of correlation between both sources. The major dissimilarity between the tests was in the magnitudes of the vessel's roll angles. All other degrees of freedom examined showed some useful correlation.Major sources of error were determined as a result of this study. These fall under three major categories:1. Wave Measuring/Matching Issues; 2. Model Weight; 3. Test Basin LimitationsThe most significant of these sources is the wave matching process. Attempting to reproduce something as complicated as a seastate is a very difficult task, even with the best of wave buoys and wave-making equipment. Also, the size of the model did not allow for much flexibility to add ballast to achieve the desired static and dynamic stability attributes.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207