MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968922556 · doi:10.1029/2004jb003555

Mechanisms of core‐mantle angular momentum exchange and the observed spectral properties of torsional oscillations

2005· article· en· W1968922556 on OpenAlexaff
J. E. Mound, B. A. Buffett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle (geology)PhysicsAngular momentumInner coreGeophysicsCore–mantle boundaryOuter coreOscillation (cell signaling)Computational physicsGeologyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Torsional oscillations of the fluid core produce decadal variations in the Earth's magnetic field and in the length of day. The magnetic field variations can be used to infer the fluid velocity of the oscillations. An additional constraint is imposed by the length‐of‐day variations because coupling mechanisms are required to transfer angular momentum between the core and mantle. Proposed mechanisms included electromagnetic, topographic, and gravitational couplings. We make use of a finite volume model of the core‐mantle system to evaluate each of these mechanisms with respect to observed spectral properties of torsional oscillations. We find that the different coupling mechanisms have different spectral characters which may be useful in distinguishing their importance within the Earth's core‐mantle system. For reasonable values of core and mantle properties, gravitational coupling between the mantle and inner core is the candidate mechanism most likely to be able to reproduce all spectral features of the observed transfer of angular momentum between the core and mantle. Possible spatial distributions of the torsional oscillation excitation source are also investigated.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations79
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207