BREAKING AND WASH UP OF SOLITARY WAVES ON A COMPOSITE BEACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hazardous events, such as landslides, rock slides, rock falls or avalanches often generate extreme, impulsive waves when entering water bodies (Fuchs & Hager, 2015). These waves are approximated by solitary waves and researchers investigate their damage potential when inundating built environment. Deepening the understanding of solitary waves running up a uniform beach slope and propagating over a subsequent horizontal plane can help to reduce and mitigate damage and the number of casualties caused by such a hazardous event. So far, few authors addressed this specific setting near-shore (Fuchs & Hager, 2015; Zelt & Raichlen, 1991). In this study, large scale solitary waves propagate about 200 m in in the Large-Wave Flume (GWK, 307 m 5 m 7 m) at the Coastal Research Center in Hannover, Germany then they run up a beach slope and subsequently break, generating a bore which advances onto a subsequent, initially dry, horizontal surface. Unlike previous studies, the generated solitary waves broke close to the edge between the beach slope and the horizontal plane section. The overall aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of the broken waves' dynamics. In addition, their surge profile and front celerity are compared to those of the non-breaking solitary waves. Subsequently, the differences between the velocity regimes along the bore propagation path are presented and linked to the fundamental physical processes behind.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".