MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NATURE-BASED COASTAL PROTECTION USING LARGE WOODY DEBRIS

2020· article· en· W3120843029 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCoastal Engineering Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimitingCoastal erosionField (mathematics)Environmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementErosionGeologyEngineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In British Columbia (BC), Canada, and Washington State, USA, anchored Large Woody Debris (LWD) have been extensively used with the specific aim of reducing erosion and limiting wave run-up. Despite its frequent usage, there is currently limited peer-reviewed literature on the design or efficacy of coastal protection using LWD. This paper presents the results of the first systematic research project on this topic, which involved (1) extensive field investigations of existing anchored LWD projects, and (2) large-scale experimental wave modeling of simulated LWD on a gravel beach. The full paper will present an overview of the study methodology, field investigation and experimental modeling results, and provide initial design guidance for the use of coastal protection using anchored LWD.Recorded Presentation from the vICCE (YouTube Link): https://youtu.be/ktjVWGfXylk

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.174 · 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