Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Long Beach breakwater structure is located in Long Beach, California. It is one of three breakwater structures that span 13.4 kilometers along the shoreline. These breakwater structures were constructed by the US army to protect naval ships in World War II. Recently, this breakwater system has received attention from the community questioning its relevance after the war. Breakwater structures reduce the intensity of wave action on the shoreline, and reduce erosion. They also provide a defence against possible storm waves. They are typically designed to absorb the wave’s energy by using mass or with the use of a slope. The Long Beach breakwater structure is known as a rubble mound breakwater, constructed of rockfill for a span of 4 kilometers. This helps to protect low-lying property and structures along the coast line. Although breakwater systems reduce the energy of waves, they also have adverse effects on the shoreline. They prevent the sea’s natural circulation which causes sedimentation and poor water quality. This has the people of Long Beach interested in the removal of the breakwater as they want cleaner beaches in an effort to increase tourism. The following paper will outline the community’s main arguments to remove the breakwater, design principals of rubble mound breakwater systems, the need for these systems, and the adverse effects they have on the environment. It will also look at the results of the initial reconnaissance study conducted by the engineering firm. In this study, the engineering firm determined a rough estimate of the cost of the project, as well as the possibilty of profits for the city if they reconfigure the breakwater structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.177 | 0.045 |
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".