MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982428163 · doi:10.1175/2007jpo3932.1

On “A Consistent Theory for Linear Waves of the Shallow-Water Equations on a Rotating Plane in Midlatitudes”

2008· article· en· W1982428163 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Poulin, Kristopher Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRossby waveKelvin waveInertial waveEquatorial wavesRossby numberPhysicsWaves and shallow waterGravitational waveShallow water equationsPlane (geometry)Gravity waveDispersion (optics)Classical mechanicsKondratiev waveMechanicsRossby radius of deformationEigenvalues and eigenvectorsMiddle latitudesMathematical analysisGeologyMathematicsGeodesyWave propagationMeteorologyGeometryMechanical waveLongitudinal waveTurbulenceLatitudeOpticsAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, Paldor et al. provided a consistent and unified theory for Kelvin, Poincaré (inertial–gravity), and Rossby waves in the rotating shallow-water equations (SWE). Unfortunately, the article has some errors, and the effort is made to correct them in this note. Also, the eigenvalue problem is rewritten in a dimensional form and then nondimensionalized in terms of more traditional nondimensional parameters and compared to the dispersion relations of the old and new theories. The errors in Paldor et al. are only quantitative in nature and do not alter their major results: Rossby waves can have larger phase speeds than what is predicted from the classical theory, and Rossby and Poincaré waves can be trapped near the equatorward boundary.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207