Wave energy and clast transport in eastern Tasman Bay, New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coarse‐gravel beaches are common features along the eastern margin of Tasman Bay, at the north end of South Island, New Zealand. Although these features have traditionally been interpreted as spits, contemporary incident wave energy appears too small to transport boulders and cobbles persistently along the beaches and platforms by longshore drift. An alternative explanation suggests that boulder beaches are essentially derived in situ from resistant bedrock, which lies seaward and was buried by gravel during the Holocene sea level rise. Wind, wave and clast size data from Cable Bay and the Nelson Boulder Bank were used to resolve this problem. Wave and wind data indicate that waves reaching these areas are derived locally in Tasman Bay, and are limited in size and energy. Hindcasting predicts a 4·7 m wave could propagate from Tasman Bay. However, during Cyclone Yalli, the most intense storm in nearly 40 years of wind records, the largest wave measured in the nearby area of Cable Bay was only 2·7 m high. Maximum orbital velocity on the seabed beneath a 4·7 m is calculated to be 2·9 m s−1, which cannot initiate transport of clasts greater than 0·15 m in diameter. Clasts on the gravel platforms have average diameters greater than this, but some clasts may be as large as 1·0 m in diameter. By comparison, a swash run‐up method predicts that a wave 4·7 m high can transport clasts no larger than 0·3 m in diameter. These data and approximate calculations strongly suggest that the present wave environment in eastern Tasman Bay is not capable of consistently transporting clasts on the boulder platforms by longshore drift. Reduced sea levels in the pre‐Holocene period would further reduce wave energies available in Tasman Bay. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".