MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405696320 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2024.2432418

Satellite Reveals the Accelerated Coastline Erosion of Sydney’s Sandy Beaches Since the 21st Century

2024· article· en· W4405696320 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohan Wang, Shiyi Zhang, Yifu Ou, Nan Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyErosionCoastal erosionSatelliteRemote sensingPhysical geographyGeologyOceanographyArchaeologyGeomorphologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastline change serves as a crucial indicator of environmental changes in coastal areas. By utilizing Landsat imagery time series from 2000 to 2022, we integrated the Modified Normalized Water Index, Support Vector Machine supervised classifier, and the Digital Coastline Analysis System to track coastline changes in Sydney’s sandy beaches over 2000-2022, and analyzed the potential factors. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Sydney’s sandy beaches exhibited an erosion trend of −0.17 m/a, resulting in a net coastline movement of −6.84 m, with over 80% of the coastline experiencing erosion. Before 2010, the sandy beaches, on average, accreted at a rate of 0.40 m/a. Then, from 2010 to 2019, the average beach accretion slowed down (0.07 m/a), with some beaches showing an erosion trend. However, after 2019, sandy coastline erosion in Sydney has greatly accelerated, with an average rate of −4.81 m/a. The primary factors influencing the spatial-temporal patterns of Sydney’s sandy coastline include sea level height, significant wave height, and storm events. This study provides valuable insights into the sustainable management and protection of sandy beaches, disaster response planning, and the sustainable development of coastal areas.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207