Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extension of the PRCI on bottom stability (OBS) software's applicability to shallow water is assessed. Version 3 of the software has a limitation on water depth; only depths greater than 6 m (20 ft) are accepted. This limitation is likely related to the increasing inaccuracy of linear wave theory as the wave height to water depth ratio increases, as well as caution about breaking wave limits. The usage of linear wave theory inside the software can be categorized into two different types: � Linear regular waves - these are used in the Level 1 module to determine the motions of the water particles as part of the calculation of the hydrodynamic forces; � Linear irregular waves - these are present in the Level 2, Level 3 and ASM modules, where the surface wave energy spectra are converted to the near-seabed wave velocities through the use of a transfer function based on linear wave theory. It is noted that for irregular waves, all wave spectral formulations currently implemented in the OBS software, do not account for water depth. This document addresses the finite water depth and shallow water restrictions and presents a discussion and investigation in two categories: 1. The direct use of the linear theory to describe waves in the Level 1 calculation module; and 2. The direct use of linear spectral transfer functions in the Level 2, Level 3, and ASM modules. The scope of this activity is to prepare a solution for consideration by PRCI and implement the agreed course of action. The solution proposed will be based on the continued use of the linear wave theory. It is noted that higher order wave theories would be more appropriate for shallow water conditions, but due to the currently established methodology in the software, implementation of higher order wave theory is not included within this scope.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.314 | 0.368 |
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".