MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013713085 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2003-45158

Detection and Characterization of Microscale Breaking Waves

2003· article· en· W2013713085 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Haroon Siddiqui, Mark Loewen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreaking waveMicroscale chemistryFetchParticle image velocimetryWind waveWind speedSurface wavePhysicsMechanicsTurbulenceMeteorologyOpticsGeologyWave propagation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microscale breaking waves are short wind-generated waves that break without air entrainment. At low to moderate wind speeds microscale breaking waves play an important role in enhancing air-water heat and gas transfer. We report on a series of experiments conducted in a wind-wave flume at Harris Hydraulics Laboratory (University of Washington, Seattle) designed to investigate the importance of microscale breaking waves in generating near-surface turbulence and in enhancing air-sea gas and heat transfer rates. Non-invasive experiments were performed at wind speeds ranging from 4.5 m/s to 11 m/s and at a fetch of 5.5 m. The skin-layer or water surface temperature was measured using an infrared (IR) imager and digital particle image velocimetry (DPIV) was used to obtain simultaneous measurements of the two-dimensional velocities immediately below the water surface. Analysis of the simultaneous DPIV and infrared datasets revealed that microscale breaking waves generate strong vortices in their crests that disrupt the cool skin layer at the water surface and create thermal wakes that are visible in the infrared images. While non-breaking waves do not generate strong vortices and hence do not disrupt the skin layer. We developed a scheme based on the magnitude of vorticity in the wave crest to identify microscale breaking waves. The results show that at a wind speed of 4.5 m/s, 11% of the waves broke. The percentage of breaking waves increased with wind speed and at a wind speed of 11 m/s, 91% of the waves were microscale breaking waves. Comparison of different geometric and flow properties of microscale breaking and non-breaking waves revealed that microscale breaking waves are steeper, larger in amplitude and generate more turbulent kinetic energy compared to non-breaking waves.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207