Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with three coastal applications of a 1D model system to represent the nearshore currents. In these applications, comparisons are made with the predictions from 2D and 3D models and field data. The system evaluated is the ISSM (the Interface for SWAN and Surf Models), which was developed as an attempt to develop a simple and reliable coastal circulation model. The nearshore circulation model SHORECIRC was considered as a reference. It is a quasi-3D model that uses REFDIF as wave driver, and combines a numerical solution for the depth-integrated 2D horizontal momentum balance equations with an analytical solution for the 3D current profiles. Three case studies were considered for comparing the models. The first is a plane beach treated as a 1D problem. The other two applications are 2D problems. The first application had mild bottom contours, while the second was characterized by strong bathymetric irregularities. Comparisons are performed between the results of the two models and with the in situ measurements. It was found that, when the angle between the direction of the wave advance and the normal to the shoreline was less than 15°, the 1D surf models can be used with confidence in coastal applications. For larger angles and more complex bathymetric conditions, 2D and 3D models are required.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".