MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NEW INSIGHTS ON USING SCALED MARSH PLANT SURROGATES FOR WAVE ATTENUATION

2023· article· en· W4386969201 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCoastal Engineering Proceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarshVegetation (pathology)DownscalingEnvironmental scienceStormCoastal erosionScale (ratio)Coastal engineeringCoastal hazardsHydrology (agriculture)GeographyErosionOceanographyMeteorologyEcologyGeologyClimate changeWetlandSea level riseCartographyGeomorphologyPrecipitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been widely demonstrated in literature that coastal marshes provide positive ecosystem services related to coastal protection, including wave attenuation, storm surge reduction, and erosion prevention (Moller et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021; Paul and Kerpen, 2021). Physical modelling presents a useful tool for investigating the coastal protection function provided by marsh vegetation in a controlled, repeatable environment, to inform design of nature-based coastal protection strategies, or “nature-based solutions” (NBS). To date, physical modelling studies have been used to investigate the influence of plant biophysical parameters (stem width, stem height, stem flexibility) and hydrodynamic conditions on wave attenuation (e.g., Augustin et al., 2009; Anderson and Smith, 2014; Moller et al., 2014; Ozeren et al., 2014; van Veelen et al., 2020). Such studies have predominantly used surrogate vegetation due to the logistical challenges and facility requirements associated with live plant experiments. Furthermore, most studies have been performed at or near full-scale to reduce uncertainties and scale effects associated with downscaling vegetation, particularly where Reynolds number similarity cannot be preserved (Blackmar et al., 2014). To address existing knowledge gaps related to physical modelling of marsh vegetation at small-scale, experiments were conducted in a 63 m long by 1.22 m wide wave flume at the National Research Council of Canada’s Ocean, Coastal and River Engineering Research Centre, Ottawa, in collaboration with the University of Ottawa and the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Quebec City.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.187 · 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