MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1679956603 · doi:10.1002/2013jc008979

Finescale parameterizations of turbulent dissipation

2014· article· en· W1679956603 on OpenAlexaff
Kurt L. Polzin, Alberto C. Naveira Garabato, Tycho N. Huussen, Bernadette M. Sloyan, Stephanie Waterman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Oceanography CentreNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDissipationTurbulenceScale (ratio)PhysicsStatistical physicsUnderpinningMixing (physics)MeteorologyClimatologyMechanicsGeologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article (1) reviews and clarifies the basic physics underpinning finescale parameterizations of turbulent dissipation due to internal wave breaking and (2) provides advice on the implementation of the parameterizations in a way that is most consistent with the underlying physics, with due consideration given to common instrumental issues. Potential biases in the parameterization results are discussed in light of both (1) and (2), and illustrated with examples in the literature. The value of finescale parameterizations for studies of the large‐scale ocean circulation in the presence of common biases is assessed. We conclude that the parameterizations can contribute significantly to the resolution of large‐scale circulation problems associated with plausible ranges in the rates of turbulent dissipation and diapycnal mixing spanning an order of magnitude or more.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations205
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207