MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384575574 · doi:10.1061/jwped5.wweng-1943

Impacts of Ship-Induced Waves along Shorelines during Flooding Events

2023· article· en· W4384575574 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynthia Bluteau, Arnold van Rooijen, Pascal Matte, Dany Dumont

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaInnovation Maritime
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetryDrawdown (hydrology)Flooding (psychology)ShoreGeologyWaves and shallow waterMarine engineeringChannel (broadcasting)OceanographyRange (aeronautics)Water levelMeteorologyWave heightShip motionsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringHullGeographyGeotechnical engineeringTelecommunicationsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ship-generated waves are often amplified onshore in confined seaways and are associated with several incidents worldwide. Few tools enable modeling the ship waves’ evolution through complex bathymetry. Here, we assess the skill of XBeach’s ship module for simulating the primary wave generated by a moving pressure head. The model was validated for five ships against field observations at three stations across Lake Saint Pierre, the widest section of the St. Lawrence seaway between Quebec City and Montreal. The study was motivated by reported damages caused by a container ship transiting at 17.6 knots, that is, 20% faster than other ships during extreme flooding. Our model predicted that the ship involved in the incident created drawdown (<20 cm) and runup (<15 cm) that was twice as high as slower ships. However, simulating a wide range of water levels and ship speeds shows that the waves would have been larger at lower water levels due to shoaling. Nonetheless, XBeach could model the evolution of the waves’ drawdown as they propagated over several kilometers from the channel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean EngineeringSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207