MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BULK DISSIPATION AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS IN CUBE ARMORED BREAKWATERS

2020· article· en· W3118749637 on OpenAlexaff
María Victoria Moragues, María Clavero, Pilar Díaz-Carrasco, Miguel Á. Losada

Bibliographic record

VenueCoastal Engineering Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissipationBreakwaterMechanicsFlow (mathematics)Constant (computer programming)Energy (signal processing)Breaking waveWave heightPhysicsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsWave propagationComputer scienceThermodynamicsStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main function of a breakwater is dissipating wave energy. The breakwater dissipates energy by means of three mechanisms: (1) wave breaking over the slope; (2) wave propagation through the secondary layers and porous core; (3) interaction with the main armor layer. A revised dimensional analysis shows that relative water depth, h/L, and wave steepness, H/L, are key factors of breakwater performance. The product of (h/L) (HI/L) (hereinafter named as , alternate slope similarity parameter) can be applied to quantify the reflected and transmitted energy coefficients and the dissipation rate (Daz-Carrasco et al., 2020) and to identify the type of wave breaking and the domains of wave energy transformation (Moragues et al., 2020). The aim of this work is to analyze the dissipation term and its relation with the alternate slope similarity parameter , as well as correlate the flow characteristics (run-up, rundown) with the type of wave breaking and the bulk dissipation. For that purpose, former data (Clavero et al. 2020) and data from new tests have been analyzed. Whereas it is not clear that the use of different experimental techniques will give the same results in the laboratory, three different techniques for sea states selection have been taken into account in the new tests: (1) keeping constant h/L; (2) keeping constant H/L or Ir; and (3) varying h/L and H/L.Recorded Presentation from the vICCE (YouTube Link): https://youtu.be/oMZ05U0igCs

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoastal Engineering ProceedingsSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207