MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6966810456 · doi:10.4224/12328162

Caisson structures in the Beaufort Sea 1982-1990: characteristics, instrumentation and ice loads

2002· report· en· W6966810456 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2002
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Wood Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentation (computer programming)CaissonBeaufort seaDrillDrillingSea iceDrift iceMode (computer interface)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents a comprehensive overview of the characteristics, instrumentation and measured ice loads on the caisson structures that were used for exploratory drilling in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the 1970s and 1980s. Details are presented on the Tarsiut Caissons, the Single Steel Drilling Caisson (SSDC), the Caisson Retained Island (CRI), and the Molikpaq. Details on the ice-load measuring instrumentation are presented for each of the drill sites where an ice-load measurement program took place. The global loads on the structures are presented as a Line Load (Global Load per width of the structure) and the Global Pressure (Line Load per ice thickness). Global loads are shown to be a function of the ice macrostructure (level first-year sea ice, multi-year ice, firstyear ridges, hummock fields, isolated floes). The analysis shows that there is a general increase in the Line Load with increasing ice thickness. The data show considerable scatter. Much of the scatter can be explained by examining the failure mode of the ice during the interaction process. The most significant result of the analysis shows that the maximum Global Pressure measured for all types of ice loading events never exceeded 2 MN/m².

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCFrench-language works237,207