Nature-Based Coastal Protection by Large Woody Debris as Compared to Seawalls: A Physical Model Study of Beach Morphology and Wave Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anchored Large Woody Debris (LWD) is increasingly being used as one of several nature-based coastal protection strategies along the north-western coasts of Canada and the US. As an alternative to conventional hard armoring (e.g., seawalls), its usage is widely considered to be less harmful to the coastal ecosystem while maintaining the ability to protect the beaches against wave attack and erosion. The effects of seawalls on beaches have been extensively studied; however, the performance and efficacy of LWD and its potential as a suitable alternative to seawalls (and other shoreline protection structures) are still understudied in current research. This paper presents and compares the effects of a conventional vertical seawall with two different LWD structures on beach morphology and wave reflection through large-scale physical modeling in a wave flume at a 1:5 scale. An assessment of techniques used to measure beach morphology and an assessment of model effects were included in the study. It was found that the wave reflection could be reduced by using a single log instead of a wall structure, while changes in the beach morphology response largely depended on the type of the LWD structure. A stacked log wall showed near-identical behavior as a conventional seawall. Visible model effects from the experiments, including the effect of the flume sidewalls on the beach morphology, were quantified and analyzed to inform future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".