Extreme Sea Level Estimation Combining Systematic Observed Skew Surges and Historical Record Sea Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The estimation of sea levels corresponding to high return periods is crucial for coastal planning and for the design of coastal defenses. This paper deals with the use of historical observations, that is, events that occurred before the beginning of the systematic tide gauge recordings, to improve the estimation of design sea levels. Most of the recent publications dealing with statistical analyses applied to sea levels suggest that astronomical high tide levels and skew surges should be analyzed and modeled separately. Historical samples generally consist of observed record sea levels. Some extreme historical skew surges can easily remain unnoticed if they occur at low or moderate astronomical high tides and do not generate extreme sea levels. The exhaustiveness of historical skew surge series, which is an essential criterion for an unbiased statistical inference, can therefore not be guaranteed. This study proposes a model combining, in a single Bayesian inference procedure, information of two different natures for the calibration of the statistical distribution of skew surges: measured skew surges for the systematic period and extreme sea levels for the historical period. A data‐based comparison of the proposed model with previously published approaches is presented based on a large number of Monte Carlo simulations. The proposed model is applied to four locations on the French Atlantic and Channel coasts. Results indicate that the proposed model is more reliable and accurate than previously proposed methods that aim at the integration of historical records in coastal sea level or surge statistical analyses.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".