Coastal impacts of marine renewables: perception of breaker characteristics by beach water users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stokes, C., Beaumont, E., Russell, P., Greaves, D., 2014. Coastal Impacts of Marine Renewables: Perception of Breaker Characteristics by Beach Water Users. In: Green, A.N. and Cooper, J.A.G. (eds.), Proceedings 13th International Coastal Symposium (Durban, South Africa), Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 70, pp. 389–394, ISSN 0749-0208.Beach water users such as bathers and surfers are of economic importance to tourism in Cornwall, UK. Wave energy converters soon to be trialed at the ‘Wave Hub’ marine renewables test site in Cornwall, may reduce inshore wave heights and have an unknown effect on wave period, therefore potentially affecting water recreation and tourism on the beaches in its lee. There is little existing research to indicate what surf conditions are ‘preferred’ by various beach water user groups, and how they perceive different wave conditions has never been investigated. Without an understanding of how waves are observed and described by water users, little can be said about how likely they are to be affected by, or if they will correctly perceive, any changes to inshore waves caused by Wave Hub or future renewables projects. To investigate how waves are perceived, nearshore wave buoy measurements collected in 10 m water depth and transformed to breaking height, were compared to concurrent visual observations of mean breaker height and period made by 354 participants. Ratios of observed over measured height and period were used to quantify the perceptions. The vast majority of water users underestimated significant wave height and period at breaking, and their average perceptions can be approximated by Hvis ≈ 0.70Hb and Tvis ≈ 0.83T1/3 (for waves 0.5≤Hb≤ 3.5 m and 3 ≤T1/3 ≤ 15 s). Although perceptions were highly varied, average perceptions did not change significantly under different wave conditions. Perception of wave period did not change significantly between the different water user groups considered. Expert water users and surfers generally under predicted wave height the most, especially for small and/or short period waves, while novices and non-surfing water users made height observations closer to measurements.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".