MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061686896

Shoreline Geomechanics at Hopewell Rocks Provincial Park, New Brunswick, Canada: Stability of the Elephant Rock, Sentinel, and Lover’s Arch Formations

2024· dissertation· en· W7061686896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRockfallArchGeomechanicsShoreFault (geology)CanyonRock mass classificationStack (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea stacks are natural pillars of rock that have been detached by wave action and other erosional processes from adjacent cliff-lined shores. The Hopewell Rocks Provincial Park in New Brunswick, Canada is situated along the coast of the Bay of Fundy, which is home to the largest tidal range in the world. The Park is a popular attraction for geotourism, as it hosts numerous sea stacks and arches that can be accessed on foot during low tide and by kayak during high tide. Approximately 2-3 small scale rockfalls from the cliffs occur at the Park each year, and larger scale rockfalls from the sea stacks occur much less frequently. This research investigates the failure mechanism through a back analysis of the partial collapse of the Elephant Rock formation and the stability of the Sentinel, and Lovers’ Arch formations through a forecast stability analysis using geomechanics numerical models. The primary sea stack failure modes in the Park—block failure, sea stack collapse, and sea arch collapse—are evaluated for the Elephant Rock, Sentinel, and Lover's Arch formations, respectively. The partial failure of the Elephant Rock occurred on March 14th, 2016. The geomechanical interpretation of the failure mechansism is supported by: analyses of a 3D Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry model of the failure surface; photographs taken before and after the failure; historic tidal, climate, and weather data; and the historic rockfall database from the Park. The failure mechanism of the Elephant Rock is interpreted to be a multi-stage combination of toppling and sliding failures. The failure was driven by progressive tidal erosion that increased stresses at the base, and freeze-thaw cycles that gradually opened fractures at the base when salt water (marine) and at the top when fresh water (precipitation) reached their respective freezing points. The forecast stability analyses of the Sentinel sea stack and Lovers’ Arch sea arch formations were completed using 3D finite element method geomechanics numerical models to assess the potential time to failure of the formations. Geometrical input was provided by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based 3D SfM photogrammetry models. Four scenarios were analyzed including the present (2021) geometry of the formations, as well as three simulated reductions in the widths of the pillar within the tidal erosion zone. The rates of erosion were determined to be approximately 3 to 6 mm per year by comparison of historic 20th century photographs and current (2021) photographs. The results from the numerical models in this study indicate that failure may occur in approximately 415 to 500 years after 2021 for the Sentinel formation, and 250 to 300 years after 2021 for the Lover’s Arch formation. The results of this study are the first geomechanical interpretations of a past partial collapse and predictive stability analyses of sea stacks and arches at Hopewell Rocks Provincial Park. The analysis framework presented in this thesis can be applied to other coastal stack and arch formations and used to evaluate the risk of collapse to impact public safety and affect geotourism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→