Bibliographic record
Abstract
The population growth in the State of Florida has created an increase in development along the shoreline in recent years. Owners have to comply with building and zoning codes, manuals, local standards, and other guidelines to obtain coastal construction permit. These guidelines were prepared by either federal, regional, or state agencies. Also, local governments (counties and municipalities) promulgate their own provisions. With the proliferation of guidelines, several regulating agencies often hold jurisdiction on a coastal construction project. Thus, several guidelines are applicable and must be satisfied. In these situations the designer must follow the most stringent of those standards, turning the design process into a difficult and time consuming task. The integrated coastal code developed in this study is a guide of minimum standards of coastal construct ion developed by integrating the most stringent guidelines from several coastal agencies in Florida. The selected counties are from around the State with coasts on the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. General guidelines for major and minor shore protect ion structures and mobile homes are part of the code which is subdivided into sections such as wind design, wave forces design, flood protection and erosion control. A user-friendly menu -driven software was also developed containing the developed integrated coastal construction code.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.992 | 0.993 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".