Effects of structurally-engineered beaches on coastal processes and shores of the Great Lakes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Impacts of coastal structures on America’s shores and beaches represent a scientific, economic and engineering challenge to assure that our beaches are protected and sustained. Coastal professionals go to great lengths to properly design, build, monitor, and maintain engineered beaches. However, the beach has a powerful and visceral connection to human nature that makes us all personally and emotionally sensitive to possible threats, proposed changes, and, ultimately, loss of this important component of human well-being. Inadvertent sand starvation and loss of beaches downdrift of 19 th - and 20 th -century harbor structures has left many people with a natural aversion to “engineered structures.” Despite that, a common solution to eroding beaches downdrift of harbors was construction of groins and groin fields that functioned like smaller versions of the harbor breakwaters trapping sand on their updrift sides. Sand bypassing and nourishment of downdrift beaches, introduced in most cases more than 50 years after harbor construction, was generally “too little and too late” to keep groin fields filled with sand. Toward the end of the 20 th century, coastal scientists and engineers, recognizing the reduced effectiveness of groins on sediment-starved coasts, began designing and constructing nearshore stone breakwaters and headlands that are better able to hold sand. These projects were typically filled (premitigated) with sand to minimize downdrift problems. Breakwater projects designed to protect beaches in the Great Lakes, including the first designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are reviewed, and several are examined in detail. These include public and private beaches on the south shore of Lake Erie, the north shore of Lake Ontario near Toronto, and the west shore of Lake Michigan north of Chicago. The largest is a 55-breakwater system designed to protect the state park at Presque Isle in Lake Erie (58 were originally designed and approved). Monitoring and examination of historic air photos has shown that attached and detached breakwaters and armored headlands, if built well within the surf zone, have minimal impacts on downdrift beaches and shores. Exceptions are temporary interruption of the littoral drift when structures are built without being adequately filled (nourished) with sand, or interruptions to planned nourishment due to lack of funding. In Illinois, state regulators adopted a requirement that any structure that may trap sand be pre-mitigated with the anticipated sand fill quantity plus a 20% overfill of new sand to assure no negative impact. Importantly, access to Google Earth on the Internet has allowed citizens and scientists to view and monitor the coast in a historical context, unbiased by a lack or misunderstanding of scale or perceived bias of coastal “experts.”
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».