MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999268168

Computation of tow loads on a liferaft in a surface wave

2007· article· en· W6999268168 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWave and Wind Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationReflection (computer programming)Surface (topology)Surface waveDiffractionDragWind waveEquations of motionWave propagation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical model for the coupled dynamics of a small liferaft and fast rescue craft in a surface wave is presented. The equations are formulated in 2D using the methods of Kane and Levinson (1985) and solved numerically using a MATLAB® Runge-Kutta routine. It is assumed that the motion normal to the wave surface is small and can be neglected, i.e. the bodies move along the propagating wave profile. The bodies are small so that wave diffraction and reflection are negligible. A Stokes' second order wave is used and the wave forces are applied using Morison's equation for a body in accelerated flow.Wind loads are similarly modeled using drag coefficients. Comparison with model tests performed at the Institute for Ocean Technology shows good agreement. The model provides guidelines for predicting the tow loads and motions of small craft in severe sea states.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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