MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898278283 · doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2018.10.009

Role of waves and tides on depth of closure and potential for headland bypassing

2018· article· en· W2898278283 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nieves G. Valiente, Gerd Masselink, Tim Scott, Daniel Conley, R. Jak McCarroll

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Geology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
KeywordsHeadlandGeologySediment transportGeomorphologySubmarine pipelineSillBedrockBedformClosure (psychology)SedimentOceanographyHydrology (agriculture)ShoreGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depth of closure is a fundamental concept used to define the seaward extent of a morphodynamically active shoreface at a particular temporal scale. The estimation of this limit in relation to the depth in front of the bounding headlands along embayed coastlines allows questioning whether embayments, often deemed closed sediment cells, experience more headland bypassing than expected. Wave-based parameterisations developed for microtidal beaches are most widely used to estimate closure depth; however, a re-evaluation of the concept for shorefaces influenced by geological control (presence of headlands and/or bedrock) and strong tidal currents is appropriate. Here, we use the macrotidal, embayed and high-energy coastline of SW England to identify the ‘active’ nearshore limits with a multi-method approach that includes observations of shoreface morphology and sedimentology, offshore/inshore wave formulations and bed shear stress computations. We identify the basal limit of ‘significant’ (i.e., 0.14 m) morphological change (Depth of Closure; DoC) and a maximum depth of extreme bed activity and sediment transport (Depth of Transport; DoT). Observations of DoC correspond closely to the values predicted by existing formulations based on inshore wave conditions (10–15 m for the study area; relative to mean low water spring water level in this case). The computed DoT, represented by the upper-plane bed transition attained under extreme conditions, exceeds 30 m depth in the study area. The significant implication is that, even though many headlands appear sufficiently prominent to suggest a closed boundary between adjacent embayments, significant wave- and tide-driven sediment transport is likely to occur beyond the headland base during extreme events, especially at low water levels. The maximum depth for significant sediment transport (DoT) was computed across a broad wave-current parameter space, further highlighting that tidal currents can increase this closure depth estimate by ~10 m along macrotidal coastlines, representing a 30% increase compared to tideless settings. This work illustrates the importance of tidal currents in depth of closure calculations and challenges the notion that embayed beaches are generally closed cells, as headland bypassing may be more wide spread than commonly assumed along exposed coastlines globally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations105
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine GeologySame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207