Effects of structurally-engineered beaches on coastal processes and shores of the Great Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impacts of coastal structures on America’s shores and beaches represent a scientific, economic and engineering challenge to assure that our beaches are protected and sustained. Coastal professionals go to great lengths to properly design, build, monitor, and maintain engineered beaches. However, the beach has a powerful and visceral connection to human nature that makes us all personally and emotionally sensitive to possible threats, proposed changes, and, ultimately, loss of this important component of human well-being. Inadvertent sand starvation and loss of beaches downdrift of 19 th - and 20 th -century harbor structures has left many people with a natural aversion to “engineered structures.” Despite that, a common solution to eroding beaches downdrift of harbors was construction of groins and groin fields that functioned like smaller versions of the harbor breakwaters trapping sand on their updrift sides. Sand bypassing and nourishment of downdrift beaches, introduced in most cases more than 50 years after harbor construction, was generally “too little and too late” to keep groin fields filled with sand. Toward the end of the 20 th century, coastal scientists and engineers, recognizing the reduced effectiveness of groins on sediment-starved coasts, began designing and constructing nearshore stone breakwaters and headlands that are better able to hold sand. These projects were typically filled (premitigated) with sand to minimize downdrift problems. Breakwater projects designed to protect beaches in the Great Lakes, including the first designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are reviewed, and several are examined in detail. These include public and private beaches on the south shore of Lake Erie, the north shore of Lake Ontario near Toronto, and the west shore of Lake Michigan north of Chicago. The largest is a 55-breakwater system designed to protect the state park at Presque Isle in Lake Erie (58 were originally designed and approved). Monitoring and examination of historic air photos has shown that attached and detached breakwaters and armored headlands, if built well within the surf zone, have minimal impacts on downdrift beaches and shores. Exceptions are temporary interruption of the littoral drift when structures are built without being adequately filled (nourished) with sand, or interruptions to planned nourishment due to lack of funding. In Illinois, state regulators adopted a requirement that any structure that may trap sand be pre-mitigated with the anticipated sand fill quantity plus a 20% overfill of new sand to assure no negative impact. Importantly, access to Google Earth on the Internet has allowed citizens and scientists to view and monitor the coast in a historical context, unbiased by a lack or misunderstanding of scale or perceived bias of coastal “experts.”
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".