Calculating Energy Flux in Internal Solitary Waves with an Application to Reflectance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The energetics of internal solitary waves (ISWs) in continuous, quasi-two-layer stratifications are explored using fully nonlinear, nonhydrostatic numerical simulations. The kinetic energy of an internal solitary wave is always greater than the available potential energy, by as much as 30% for the stratifications considered. Because of different spatial distributions of the kinetic and available potential energy densities, however, the fluxes are quite different. The available potential energy flux is found to always exceed the kinetic energy flux, by as much as a factor of 5. The sizes of the various fluxes in the wave pseudoenergy (kinetic plus available potential energy) equation are compared, showing that, while the linear flux term (velocity–pressure perturbation) dominates the fluxes, the fluxes of available potential and kinetic energy are significant for large ISWs. Past work on estimating the reflectance (ratio of reflected to incident pseudoenergy flux) associated with internal solitary waves incident on a linearly sloping bottom in laboratory experiments and numerical simulations has incorrectly assumed that the available potential energy flux was equal to the kinetic energy flux. Hence, the sensitivity of reflectance estimates to the way the flux is calculated is investigated. For these low Reynolds number situations, it is found that a correct account of the available potential energy flux reduces the reflectance by as much as 0.1 when the pycnocline is close to the surface.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it