MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229619644 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.8877

Sea Dyke Rehabilitation and Climate Change in Dutch and Japanese Contexts

2018· article· en· W4229619644 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather J. Murdock

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeFlood mythStormStorm surgeGlobal warmingRehabilitationEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceGeographyClimatologyMeteorologyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between climate change and the need to rehabilitate sea dykes. Sea dykes are a critical component of coastal infrastructure and national flood prevention systems and are increasingly susceptible to a number of failure mechanisms under climate change conditions. This paper will explore case studies of sea dyke rehabilitation and climate change in both the Netherlands and Japan. Both countries have urban areas within close proximity to coastal areas and have constructed sea and river dykes as part of their national flood prevention plans. The International Panel on Climate Change published a report in February 2012 stating that mean global temperatures are going to increase by 1 to 3 degrees Celcius by 2050, which will affect global weather conditions. The characteristics of climate change which most affect sea dykes include the frequency and severity of storms as well as global sea level rise. These trends increase the risk of dyke failure modes such as overtopping, micro instability, and erosion of non-reinforced inner slopes. Techniques for rehabilitation both proven and proposed will be discussed with a particular focus on methods for implementation as well as the policy framework of these projects.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207