MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048602215 · doi:10.3390/w12082254

Physical Modelling of Arctic Coastlines—Progress and Limitations

2020· article· en· W3048602215 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Korte, Rebekka Gieschen, Jacob Stolle, Nils Goseberg

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostErosionCoastal erosionArcticClimate changeEnvironmental scienceAbrasion (mechanical)GeologyEarth scienceClimatologyPhysical geographyOceanographyGeomorphologyEngineeringGeographyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permafrost coastlines represent a large portion of the world’s coastal area and these areas have become increasingly vulnerable in the face of climate change. The predominant mechanism of coastal erosion in these areas has been identified through several observational studies as thermomechanical erosion—a joint removal of sediment through the melting of interstitial ice (thermal energy) and abrasion from incoming waves (mechanical energy). However, further developments are needed looking how common design parameters in coastal engineering (such as wave height, period, sediment size, etc.) contribute to the process. This paper presents the current state of the art with the objective of establishing the necessary research background to develop a process-based approach to predicting permafrost erosion. To that end, an overarching framework is presented that includes all major, erosion-relevant processes, while delineating means to accomplish permafrost modelling in experimental studies. Preliminary modelling of generations zero and one models, within this novel framework, was also performed to allow for early conclusions as to how well permafrost erosion can currently be modelled without more sophisticated setups.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207