MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105516620 · doi:10.2112/si70-066.1

Coastal impacts of marine renewables: perception of breaker characteristics by beach water users

2014· article· en· W2105516620 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher Stokes, Emily Beaumont, Paul Russell, Deborah Greaves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coastal Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsBuoyTourismRenewable energyOceanographySurf zoneRecreationGeographyWave heightRip currentEnvironmental sciencePerceptionShoreEngineeringGeologyArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coastal ResearchSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207