Design and Re-Use of Placed Block Revetments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood defences in the Netherlands are mainly covered with grass. Hard revetments are applied in places where the grass can't provide sufficient resistance against the attack of waves and current. Since centuries these revetments consist of placed block revetments. In the old days natural stones such as basalt were used. Initially the basalt was placed directly on the clay, but this clay appeared to erode beneath the blocks. Consequently, a filter layer beneath the basalt was applied: a straw mattress with above that a layer of rubble. After the flooding disaster of 1953, natural material was scarce, so it was replaced by concrete blocks, which were placed directly on the clay. The idea was, that these concrete blocks could be placed close to each other, resulting in a relatively impermeable layer, through which the clay would not erode. The very neatly look was another advantage of this type of structure. The height of the concrete blocks was dimensioned based on experience. The design criterion was "not too much damage during yearly circumstances". If the damage appeared to be too much, the concrete elements were being replaced by heavier ones.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".