MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF DEBRIS ON A VERTICAL OBSTACLE

2018· article· en· W2913672492 on OpenAlexaff
Nils Goseberg, Jacob Stolle, Ioan Nistor

Bibliographic record

VenueCoastal Engineering Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEarthquake and Tsunami Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebrisContext (archaeology)Debris flowObstacleGeologyEntrainment (biomusicology)Natural disasterDemolitionEnvironmental scienceGeographyOceanographyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past tsunami events have caused extreme damage in coastal regions. Examples are the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 and the Tohuku Tsunami in 2011. These extreme natural disasters brought into light the devastating nature which tsunami-induced inundation might inflict when propagating on-land. As a result of eye-witness reports and extensive media coverage, a wealth of evidence showing multi-phase fluid motion entraining a solid phase consisting of entrained debris, ranging from sediment grains to large vessels became available. In this context, debris impacts have been linked to major infrastructural damage (Yeh et al. 2012). This observation resulted in increased research emphasis on tsunami-driven debris impact. It also initiated the inclusion of first debris impact force equations in existing building codes such as FEMA (P-646 2012) and ASCE (Standard 7-16 Chapter 6). There are however still a lot of uncertainties on factors influencing tsunami-driven debris impact. Besides the random, probabilistic nature of debris entrainment, advection by the entraining flow and the uncertainty related to impact points, no guidance exists as to how multiple impacts of debris can be accounted for. In addition, little focus was directed to impact forces on non-rigid structures which investigated here for the first time.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoastal Engineering ProceedingsSame topicEarthquake and Tsunami EffectsFrench-language works237,207