Planning for Shoreline Response to Spills in Arctic Environments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Arctic coasts present three unique shoreline types that are common in North America and Eurasia, but that are not found in lower latitudes or in the southern hemisphere: tundra cliffs, peat shorelines, and inundated low-land tundra. Tundra cliffs range in character from ice-rich exposures that are dominated by rapid thermo-erosional processes to high (10–15 meters) sediment-rich cliffs that may be eroded by slumping or basal sapping. One product of this rapid erosion of the tundra is to produce large volumes of peat and in many sections these form the dominant shore-zone material. In low-lying areas the flooding of the tundra has produced extremely complex shoreline configurations characterized by the elevated rims of patterned ground. These unique arctic shore types present different sets of challenges for shoreline cleanup and treatment and have been included in the U.S. marine oil spill response guide published in 2001 by API, NOAA, USCG, and USEPA and several specialized Arctic response manuals published recently by Environment Canada. A low-altitude aerial videotape survey in 2001 produced continuous images of the mainland and barrier island coasts of the Alaskan Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coasts from the Canadian border to Point Hope, used to map the shore types as part of a mapping project for the Minerals Management Service. The mapping revealed that the three arctic shoreline types are present on more than half (54 per cent) of the coast between the Canadian border and Point Hope.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it