MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096143474

Correspondence of Beach User Perception, Lifesaving Strategies and Rip Currents at Brackley Beach and Cavendish Beach Prince Edward Island

2020· article· en· W3096143474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Summer Locknick

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCruise Tourism Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRip currentBeach nourishmentPerceptionOceanographyGeologyArchaeologyGeographyShorePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rip currents are an emerging public health hazard, with the potential to have serious socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities globally. Rip currents, colloquially known as rips, are common along the north shore of Prince Edward Island, and are associated with a transverse bar and rip morphology that tends to develop as the bars migrate landward following winter storms. The rip morphology tends to develop at the height of the economically important tourist season. Several drownings have occurred within and adjacent to Prince Edward Island National Park (PEINP) in recent years, and they have been attributed to rip currents at or near the primary access points to the beach. Whether someone drowns or is in need of rescue depends on a complex interplay between the physical presence of the rip, the management of the specific beach and the perceptions of the beach user. This study is the first to examine the relationship amongst the presence and location of rips, beach user intentions and behaviour, and the lifeguard-defined hazard level. Beach user surveys were administered over a four-week period at the popular tourist beaches of Cavendish Beach and Brackley Beach within PEINP, with an objective to analyze the spatial and temporal variation of beach users with respect to their understanding of the rip hazard, warnings posted by the lifeguards and quasi-permanent rips at the sites. Results suggests that the intention of a beach user to be safe at the beach may not accurately reflect their actions. Many beach users surveyed in this study did not pay attention to beach warnings and appear to be influenced by other factors that confirmed their assumption that the beach was safe. Those who did not observe the sign tended to sit further away from the access point compared to those who saw the signs. Tourists were also found to be at higher risk of needing rescue or drowning caused by rip currents due to their lack of rip knowledge and their inability to recall the location and colour of warning flags and rip signage. Further research into the correspondence of beach user perception, lifesaving strategies and rip currents can help reduce the number of drownings related to rip currents and other surf hazards through the effective deployment of lifesaving strategies and increase public confidence in rip hazard predictions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicCruise Tourism Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207