MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184558531

Effects of structurally-engineered beaches on coastal processes and shores of the Great Lakes

2011· article· en· W2184558531 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles W. Shabica, Michael C. Mohr, Stefanie Nagelbach

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakwaterBeach nourishmentShoreNatural (archaeology)Coastal erosionCoastal engineeringLongshore driftGeologyDredgingAccretion (finance)PlageFisheryGeographyOceanographySedimentSediment transportGeomorphologyPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207