Textbook dune: Is there a representative and scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Coastal Dune Model, used to examine controls on dune development and evolution, includes negative feedback between the wind and the evolving topography that results in a scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile. While a limited number of reference profiles appear to support the Coastal Dune Model assumption of scale‐invariance, previously published studies and conceptual models suggest that the beach‐dune profile is not scale‐invariant. Using a combination of journal articles, textbooks, and remotely sensed data from Prince Edward Island, Washington state, and Texas, this short communication finds that there is no evidence for a scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile within and between field sites. Variability in the beach‐dune profile is due to site‐specific and scale‐dependent controls on the beach and the dune that are often highlighted in the conceptual models that authors use to depict the controls on sediment supply and transport from the beach to the dune. Results highlight a need to critically evaluate the assumptions and applications of models such as the Coastal Dune Model, and to explore how and when sites can be considered representative and in support of model results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".