MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505080555 · doi:10.1029/2010gl044296

Coriolis forces influence the secondary circulation of gravity currents flowing in large‐scale sinuous submarine channel systems

2010· article· en· W1505080555 on OpenAlexafffund
Remo Cossu, Mathew G. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoNatural Environment Research CouncilUniversity of Leeds
KeywordsCentrifugal forceSecondary circulationGeologyCirculation (fluid dynamics)MechanicsPhysicsThroughflowChannel (broadcasting)Turbidity currentRADIUSVortexFlow (mathematics)Geomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combination of centrifugal and Coriolis forces drive the secondary circulation of turbidity currents in sinuous channels, and hence determine where erosion and deposition of sediment occur. Using laboratory experiments we show that when centrifugal forces dominate, the density interface shows a superelevation at the outside of a channel bend. However when Coriolis forces dominate, the interface is always deflected to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere) for both left and right turning bends. The relative importance of either centrifugal or Coriolis forces can be described in terms of a Rossby number defined as Ro = U/fR , where U is the mean downstream velocity, f the Coriolis parameter and R the radius of curvature of the channel bend. Channels with larger bends at high latitudes have ∣ Ro ∣ < 1 and are dominated by Coriolis forces, whereas smaller, tighter bends at low latitudes have ∣ Ro ∣ ≫ 1 and are dominated by centrifugal forces.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207