MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552550877 · doi:10.1002/grl.50624

Sea‐state‐dependent wind work on the oceanic general circulation

2013· article· en· W1552550877 on OpenAlexaff
Guoqiang Liu, William Perrie

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind stressClimatologyOcean currentHindcastSea stateGeostrophic currentGeostrophic windGeologyWind waveEnvironmental scienceWind speedLatitudeSea-surface heightWind shearStormAtmospheric sciencesSea surface temperatureOceanographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine sea‐state‐dependent wind work on the oceanic general circulation, using a wave hindcast dataset, QuikSCAT winds, and geostrophic and total ocean surface currents from (1) AVISO and (2) ECCO2 model products. For wind work on surface geostrophic currents estimated from AVISO or ECCO2, sea‐state‐dependent wind stress increases an average of 24% (0.17TW) or 23% (0.15TW), compared with estimates that exclude sea state effects. For wind work on the total surface currents, the sea‐state‐dependent wind stress increases the wind work by about 24% (0.4TW). In terms of spatial distribution, the increase in wind power input occurs mainly in high‐wind tropical regions and the mid‐latitude storm track regions, like the Antarctic Circumpolar Current region, where the relatively rough ocean surface is characterized by young waves and high winds. By comparison, in some regions with relatively low winds and mature ocean waves, there is a slight reduction in estimated wind power input.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207