Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indentation testing at medium scale has been carried out on four occasions, between 1984 and 1990, in the Canadian Arctic. Iceberg ice and multi-year ice were tested. Forces up to 16 MN were exerted on contact areas up to 3 m2 at rates up to 0.4 m/s. All testing was done with the same servo-hydraulic controlled system. Results of the test programs have been previously reported individually. Here the results have been compared in terms of force versus penetration, global pressure versus nominal contact area and volumetric specific crushing energy versus crushed volume of ice. Various geometries of indenter and ice face were used but the volumetric specific crushing energy was relatively independent of geometry of ice or the indenter for the cases examined. Specific energy is lower for lower penetration rates. There was a strong numerical similarity between volumetric specific energy (MJ/m3) and pressure (MPa) for the same test, whether plotted against crushed ice volume or nominal contact area. This paper explores whether volumetric specific crushing energy can provide helpful insights to defining global ice pressures on relatively small global areas, those less than 3 m2. While this linkage may provide an additional data source for global pressure-area relations needed for structural design, further understandings are needed before their application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".