Two recent storm-surge episodes in the adriatic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the recent past, two intensive episodes of high sea level occurred in the Adriatic, which affected particularly the eastern coast of the basin.The events happened on 1 December 2008 and on 1 November 2012 when the eastern-coast station Bakar recorded the two highest water levels in its operational history.Interestingly, the episodes were of milder intensity in Venice, situated at the opposite coast.The question is: why these events were so pronounced along the eastern shore and was there specific meteorological background favouring stronger flooding of the eastern Adriatic coast?The study was carried out using hourly sea-level series along both sides of the basin and ECMWF reanalysis of air pressure and wind fields.Sea level was attributed to four processes: low-frequency variability, tide, pre-existing basin-wide seiche and storm-surge activity and respective contributions to high sea-level formations were evaluated.The effects of meteorological forcings over the basin were analysed by calculating along-and across-basin wind stress with respect to local bathymetry.The two marine storms were outcome of fine interplay between the four mentioned processes.During the 2008 flood, stormsurge activity was dominant while the other components reinforced the maximum.In the 2012 episode, storm surge was intensive at most stations, but relative timing of all the components was more complex.Results also revealed one common feature that was crucial for both floods being stronger along the eastern Adriatic coast.Specifically, presence of Sirocco-wind shear induced higher-than-usual water level rise along the eastern coast while transverse component of wind had a relatively small effect.This means that, at least in these two extreme episodes, transverse sea-level slope in the Adriatic was more sensitive to shear of longitudinal component of wind than to wind's direction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".