MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1660905893 · doi:10.1029/2010gl045453

Observations of internal wave packets propagating along-shelf in northern Monterey Bay

2011· article· en· W1660905893 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. Brock Woodson, John A. Barth, Olivia M. Cheriton, M. A. McManus, John P. Ryan, Libe Washburn, Kristin N. Carden, Brian S. Cheng, Joana N. Fernandes, Lauren E. Garske, Tarik C. Gouhier, Alison J. Haupt, K. T. Honey, Maxwell Hubbard, Alison C. Iles, L. Kara, Margaret C. Lynch, Brenna Mahoney, Maya C. Pfaff, Malin L. Pinsky, Matt J. Robart, Jordan Stewart, Sarah J. Teck, Aaron C. True

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation
KeywordsThermoclineGeologyBayInternal waveOceanographyUpwellingIsopycnalAmplitudeWave packetContinental shelfPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internal waves of depression were observed propagating along-shelf and into northern Monterey Bay, California (CA) on the inner shelf. These waves had amplitudes approximately equal to the thermocline depth (∼4 m), and were unstable to shear and mix the thermocline. Isopycnal gradient spectra showed that the wave packets lead to an elevated mean dissipation rate of ɛ = 2.63 × 10−5 m3 s−2 for up to 2 hours after wave passage. The proximity to the surface created strong surface convergences that can actively transport buoyant material, such as plankton, back into the bay. The wave packets were observed regularly over the upwelling season across multiple years suggesting they may have large effects on the documented spatial variation of phytoplankton and larvae on the inner shelf. The timing of the waves suggests they are not formed by tides interacting with bathymetry, but are generated by buoyant plume propagation.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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