TURBULENT BORES–INDUCED SCOUR AND PORE PRESSURE VARIATIONS AROUND A VERTICAL STRUCTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scour due to the highly turbulent tsunami inundation is also a major threat to nearshore infrastructure [Nakamura, et al., 2008]. Research on local sediment erosion during tsunami events has shown a correlation between scour formation, pore pressure variations, and soil liquefaction [Mioduszewski and Maeno, 2003]. To understand the structures’ capacity to withstand the tsunami bores, it is critical to assess scour formation and pore pressure variations around their foundations [Macabuag et al., 2018, Nicholas et al., 2020; Mehrzad et at. 2021]. Young et al. (2008) conducted laboratory experiments to study tsunami induced liquefaction failure on a sand bed with two different slopes of 1V:5H and 1V:15H. The correlation between soil liquefaction and scour showed a direct link with bed slope and pore pressure and the peak pressure increased as the bed slope increased. Concerning the hydrodynamic forcing factor, research conducted by [Chanson, 2006] showed that the hydrodynamic characteristics of tsunami inundation can be adequately modeled using dam-break waves. The prime objective of this study was to comprehensively investigate the interaction of a wide range of hydrodynamic conditions and beach slopes on the variation of the pore pressure and associated scour.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".