MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263164253 · doi:10.2112/si65-070.1

Modelling beach-structure interaction using a Heaviside technique: application and validation

2013· article· en· W2263164253 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coastal Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsHeaviside step functionBreaking waveSediment transportShoreJettyGeologyErosionMeteorologyForcing (mathematics)Longshore driftSwashSeries (stratigraphy)GeomorphologyClimatologyOceanographySedimentMathematicsPhysicsWave propagationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Valsamidis, A., Cai, Y., Reeve, D.E., 2013. Modelling beach-structure interaction using a Heaviside technique: application and validationIn this study, an analytical solution, based on a Heaviside technique, is developed to model the shoreline evolution in the vicinity of a groyne due to a random sequence of waves. The beach at Borth, Wales, UK was used as a case-study. A wave time-series covering a time period of about 12 years, was used to test the performance of a recently constructed coastal defence scheme. Transformations of the wave time-series from offshore to nearshore were performed using a semi-empirical procedure. Three different wave breaking formulae were independently applied to the wave model, and their effects to the consequent shoreline evolution were investigated. In addition, three different longshore transport formulae were compared. These were the CERC, the Kamphuis and the Bayram formulae. Results showed that the CERC formula predicted a significantly greater amount of sediment transport and hence erosion on the downdrift side of the groyne while the models based on Kamphuis and the Bayram formulae gave comparable results. All the results exhibited a strong sensitivity to the temporal resolution of the forcing. Finally, some sensitivity to the treatment of wave breaking was found.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.279 · 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