Statistical analysis and prediction of force and overtopping rates on large-scale vertical walls using support vector machine and random forest regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides a statistical basis to determine the most influencing parameters on forces and overtopping over vertical walls, as well as to showcase the usability of machine learning modelling in coastal engineering. To this end, horizontal force and overtopping data for regular waves of varying height (0.63–1.65 m), period (4–8 s), and water depth (3.37–3.97 m) over a vertical wall were studied using redundancy analysis (RDA) and regressed using multiple linear regression, support vector regression (SVR), and random forest regression (RFR). The RDA showed that about 60% of the output variable variance can be explained by the structure dimensions and 15% by the incoming wave characteristics. The SVR approach better predicted the average force (mean relative error (MRE) = 39.9% and R 2 = 0.346), whereas the RFR technique better predicted overtopping discharges (MRE = 46.7% and R 2 = 0.802). By expanding the database, the error on overtopping prediction was reduced to 22.1% and 27.5%, respectively, for the SVR and RFR.
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".