MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042642894

Practical considerations related to carrying out seakeeping trials on small fishing vessels

2005· article· en· W7042642894 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSeakeepingCrewFishingScale (ratio)Instrumentation (computer programming)Sea trialComponent (thermodynamics)Full scale
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last two years, the Institute for Ocean Technology (IOT) has participated in seakeeping trials on four small fishing vessels ranging in length from 10.64 m (34?11?) to 19.80 m (64?11?) as part of an effort to acquire full scale data to validate physical modeling methodology as well as numerical simulation tools under development. The project is just a small component of a larger initiative to understand and mitigate the health and safety risks associated with employment in a marine environment. Eventually, tools will be developed and validated to evaluate the number of Motion Induced Interrupts (MIIs), induced by sudden ship motions, and their impact on crew accidents to develop criteria to reduce MIIs. This paper describes the challenges associated with acquiring full scale seakeeping data on small vessels in the harsh North Atlantic environment. Typical results will be provided along with a description of the instrumentation suite, data acquisition system, test program and data analysis procedure used with emphasis on some of the factors that can degrade the correlation between ship and model scale data.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicMaritime Navigation and SafetyFrench-language works237,207