MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6993180746

Numerical implementation and benchmark of ice-hull interaction model for ship manoeuvring simulations

2008· article· en· W6993180746 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsBenchmarkingComponent (thermodynamics)Benchmark (surveying)Reliability (semiconductor)Scope (computer science)Operator (biology)Basis (linear algebra)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first question about the performance of a ship operating in ice is usually about the speedpower relationship moving ahead in the specified ice conditions. With advanced physical model test technology and the increasing scope and reliability of full-scale data on reference ships, this question may be answered with considerable confidence at the design stage. Attention has turned in recent years to assessment of the performance of ships undertaking turns and more complex maneuvers in ice. Ability to predict turning performance is important in ship navigation, and it is essential as the basis for numerical models in marine simulators used for operator training and operations planning. This paper reports on the development of a new physically based ice-hull interaction (IHI) model, developed at the NRC Institute for Ocean Technology. This model will serve as the key ice component for ship real-time simulators in ice. The model calculates forces generated by increments in an arbitrary prescribed ship motion. The model incorporates multi-failure ice modes and hydrodynamic effects, and tracks the development of the broken channel. The theoretical basis for the model has been described in a previous paper. This paper presents the model's numerical implementation and benchmarking based on ship model tests in ice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFinite Group Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207