Liferaft performance in wind and waves: an experimental evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liferafts are commonly used worldwide as primary or a secondary means of evacuation from passenger vessels, merchant ships, and offshore petroleum installations. In many cases, liferafts are required by regulations whose explicit aims are to provide for the safety of life at sea. Despite being almost universally prescribed and carried by ships and offshore platforms, the actual performance that can be expected of liferafts and the people who have to use them in practice is largely unknown. Current international standards for Life Saving Appliances require the successful completion of tests in calm water in order for manufacturers to obtain type approvals for their liferafts. However, the performance of liferafts in general ocean conditions is largely unknown. This absence of qualitative and quantitative knowledge of expected utility, especially in different weather conditions, weakens rational decision-making processes and a host of associated decisions in search and rescue operations and planning. The authors have been conducting research over the last three years on liferaft operational performance to address some of these unknowns. The research investigated liferaft operational performance in a range of weather conditions, at both model and full scale. This paper presents the results of tow and drift experiments on 16, 42 and 150 person rafts, and addresses a knowledge gap by providing empirical data that can be used by manufacturers, regulators and other professionals in their decisions concerning liferaft safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it