Eight Types of BG Models and Discretization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eight types of the BG models are introduced in this chapter. The Type 1 is a model using wave parameters at the breaking point. In the Type 2, the effect of longshore sand transport due to the effect of the longshore gradient of breaker height is included with an additional term given by Ozasa and Brampton. In the Type 3, the intensity of sand transport P is assumed to be proportional to the third power of the amplitude of the bottom oscillatory velocity um due to waves, and in the Type 4, P is given by the wave energy dissipation rate due to wave breaking at a local point. In the Type 5, wave power is calculated using the coordinate system different from that for the calculation of beach changes to predict the topographic changes of an island or a cuspate foreland in a shallow water body under the action of waves randomly incident from every direction. In the Type 6, the height of wind waves is predicted using Wilson’s formula using the wind fetch distance and wind velocity, and then sand transport fluxes are calculated. The Type 7 is a model for predicting the formation of the ebb-tidal delta under the combined effect of waves and ebb-tidal currents with an analogy of the velocity distribution of ebb-tidal currents to the wave diffraction coefficient, which can be calculated by the angular spreading method for irregular waves. In the Type 8, the effect of the nearshore currents induced by forced wave breaking is incorporated into the model by calculating the nearshore currents, taking both the wave field and the current velocity at a local point into account.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".