MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W18470085 · doi:10.1139/g94-058

Numerical Simulation of Regional Circulation in the Monterey Bay Region

2003· article· en· W18470085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu‐Heng Tseng, David E. Dietrich, Joel H. Ferziger

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayBathymetryGeologyHydrostatic equilibriumOceanographyCanyonForcing (mathematics)ClimatologyGeomorphologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monterey Bay is located 100 km south of San Francisco and is one of several large bays on the West Coast of the United States. This area is important due to the abundance of marine life. The regional circulation in the Monterey Bay area is tightly coupled to the California Current System (CCS) and highly correlated to the coastal upwelling. In the offshore region, flow is dominated by a broad, weak, equatorward flowing current, the California Current (CC). The CC extends offshore to a distance of 900 - 1000 km and flows year-round. Within about 100 km of the coast, two narrow poleward flowing boundary currents have been found, the Inshore Countercurrent (IC) and the California Undercurrent (CU). The IC is a weak current that varies seasonally, appearing in fall and winter, and transports shallow, upper layer water. The CU is a narrow (10-50 km) relatively weak subsurface flow and transports warm, saline equatorial water. The CU is strongest at around 100 - 300 m depth and has a mean speed of approximately 15 cm/s (Pierce et al. 2000) at all latitudes on the West Coast throughout the year.

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)0.001
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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→