ArticleScientific reports2026
Internal variability in numerical morphodynamical experimentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has long been recognized that the morphodynamics of coastal bays are not fully deterministic but instead exhibit inherent uncertainty. This intrinsic variability is reminiscent of internal variability in climate systems, arising not only from dynamical instabilities but also from the integration of random disturbances. Traditionally, uncertainty in morphodynamic behavior has been investigated through stability analyses. However, traditional assessments of stability have largely focused on the stability property of low-dimensional analysis. In realistic dynamical numerical models, morphodynamic systems are rarely low-dimensional. In these cases, it is often more appropriate to regard the uncertainty as a manifestation of stochasticity. For real-world systems, this raises an important question: when does an observed development lie outside the range of intrinsic variability, implying the influence of an external driver? Answering this is considerably more complex than in controlled numerical experiments, where a single parameter or process can be isolated and modified. In this paper, we examine uncertainty in a relatively simple morphodynamic numerical model of a coastal bay. We show that minor changes in the initial conditions-such as the tidal phase at model initialization-can lead to differences among ensemble members, substantial in local features (e.g., the fine-scale structure of channels) and less so in overall properties, such as mean bay depth and channel number count. Consequently, a robust evaluation of numerical experiments, such as those testing the effects of altered parameterizations, requires explicit estimates of the system's inherent uncertainty so that the "signal" generated by experimental changes can be distinguished from internal variability ("noise").
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.