Coastal dune vulnerability among selected Scottish systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eleven Scottish dune systems were investigated as to their vulnerability with respect to management procedures. Analysis consisted of the structured use of a rating scheme to assess the environmental conditions and range of protection measures at each site. A 54 parameter checklist was utilised to assess Site and Dune Morphology (8 parameters); B) Beach Condition (9); C) Surface Character of the Seaward 200 m of Dune System (12); D) Pressure of Use (14) and E) Recent Protection Measures (11). The percentage of the maximum possible rating for each category was calculated and summation of the 43 parameter ratings A) to D) provides a Vulnerability Index (VI), which ranged from 40% at Gaineamh Mhor to 55% at Calgary Bay. The percentage score for the 11 parameters in category E) gives a Protection Measure Index (PM), which ranged from 18% at Breckon to 73% at Culzean. Systems with a VI/PM ratio in the range 0.8-1.3 are regarded as having an equilibrium relationship between vulnerability and protection; sites with values 1.3 (e.g. Ardalanish) are out of equilibrium (negative), i.e. they are under protected. Alternatively, a descriptive categorisation can be derived: I. Low Vulnerability - Low Management Response; II. High Vulnerability - High Management Response; III. Low Vulnerability - High Management Response; IV. High Vulnerability - Low Management Response. The approaches mentioned improve objectivity in dune vulnerability measurement and provides a useful basis for proactive management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".