MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1759556418 · doi:10.1002/2013jc009436

Energy dissipation in viscous‐plastic sea‐ice models

2014· article· en· W1759556418 on OpenAlexafffund
Amélie Bouchat, Bruno Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsDissipationMechanicsEnergy balanceSink (geography)DragKinetic energyKinematicsGeologyPhysicsClassical mechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In viscous‐plastic (VP) sea‐ice models, small deformations are approximated by irreversible viscous deformations, introducing a nonphysical energy sink. As the spatial resolution and the degree of numerical convergence of the models increase, linear kinematic features (LKFs) are better resolved and more states of stress lie in the viscous regime. Energy dissipation in this nonphysical viscous regime therefore increases. We derive a complete kinetic energy (KE) balance for sea ice, including plastic and viscous energy sinks to study energy dissipation. The main KE balance is between the energy input by the wind and the dissipation by the water drag and the internal stresses (dissipating 87% and 13% of the energy input on an annual average). The internal stress term is mostly important in winter when ice‐ice interactions are dominant. The energy input that is not dissipated locally is redistributed laterally by the internal stresses into regions of dissipation by small‐scale deformations (LKFs). Of the 13% dissipated annually by the internal stress term, 93% is dissipated in plastic friction along LKFs (14% in ridging, 79% in shearing) and 7% is stored as potential energy in ridges. For all time and spatial scales tested, the frictional viscous dissipation is negligible in the KE balance. This conclusion remains valid regardless of the degree of numerical convergence of the simulations. Overall, the results confirm the applicability, from an energetical point of view, of the VP approximation.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207