A Case Study Documenting: The UK south-east regional strategic coastal monitoring programme
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The south-east coast of England is characterised by low-lying land susceptible to both flooding and erosion as a result of rising sea levels and soft sedimentary geology. This combined with extensive coastal development, means that the management of the coastal zone is essential. Shoreline Management Plans and coastal strategy studies have highlighted the need for a more standard approach to coastal monitoring in order maximise the use of data and to provide best value. The coastline of England and Wales is subdivided into coastal cells for the purposes of shoreline management planning (Motyka and Brampton, 1993) of which the South-East Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme covers approximately 1000km within Coastal Cells 4 and 5 between Portland Bill and the Isle of Grain. The recent approach to coastal monitoring has been both ad-hoc and unsatisfactory within the southeast of England, and elsewhere in the UK; this is evident at both regional and local scales. Data collection and analysis methodologies have been inconsistent, and coordination has been poor.The South-East Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme was introduced as a means of providing a standard, repeatable and cost-effective method of monitoring the coastal environment. It provides information for development of strategic shoreline management plans, coastal defence strategies and operational management of coastal protection and flood defence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it