Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-Crested stmctures (LCS's) are typically built in shallow water as detached breakwaters for coastal protection purposes. The structures are usually parallel to the shoreline with wave attack almost perpendicular to the structure. However under special enviromnental conditions more oblique waves can occur. Groin systems or breakwaters for harbours where structures are not parallel to shoreline are other examples in which oblique wave attack occur. Numerical models are still too inaccurate to describe the stability phenomenon especially in case of 3D-waves: Therefore numerical models cannot be used in establishment of design formulae. Several 2D laboratory experiments on trunk armour layer stability of LCS's have been performed in wave channels; see e.g. Allrens 1987, Van der Meer 1990/1996, Loveless and Debski 1997. To our knowledge only one 3D test series with long crested waves has been carried out on complete LCS's, see Vidal et al. 1992. These tests were canied out in the wave basin at NRC, Canada, 1991-1992 on a 4.7m long structure exposed to inegular head-on waves. The results showed that in some situations the rear head was prone to damage. Only one structure geometry was tested with cross-sectien slopes 1V:1.5H. The results could therefore only quantify influence of freeboard on the stability tor that specific geometly. The objective of the new LCS stability tests (mainly roundhead but also trunk) was to supplement existing tests in order to identify the influence on rubble stone stability of: 1) Obliquity of short crested waves 2) Wave height and steepness 3) Crest width 4) Preeboard 5) Structure slope The stability tests were canied out in the short-crested wave basin at Aalborg University in Denmark during the summer 2002.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".