MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015590894 · doi:10.1175/2007jpo3762.1

Spectrally Resolved Energy Dissipation Rate and Momentum Flux of Breaking Waves

2008· article· en· W2015590894 on OpenAlexafffund
Johannes Gemmrich, Michael L. Banner, Chris Garrett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution
KeywordsBreaking waveDissipationPhysicsCrestMechanicsWave shoalingEnergy fluxWind waveWave propagationPhase velocityMechanical waveOpticsLongitudinal waveThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Video observations of the ocean surface taken from aboard the Research Platform FLIP reveal the distribution of the along-crest length and propagation velocity of breaking wave crests that generate visible whitecaps. The key quantity assessed is Λ(c)dc, the average length of breaking crests per unit area propagating with speeds in the range (c, c + dc). Independent of the wave field development, Λ(c) is found to peak at intermediate wave scales and to drop off sharply at larger and smaller scales. In developing seas breakers occur at a wide range of scales corresponding to phase speeds from about 0.1 cp to cp, where cp is the phase speed of the waves at the spectral peak. However, in developed seas, breaking is hardly observed at scales corresponding to phase speeds greater than 0.5 cp. The phase speed of the most frequent breakers shifts from 0.4 cp to 0.2 cp as the wave field develops. The occurrence of breakers at a particular scale as well as the rate of surface turnover are well correlated with the wave saturation. The fourth and fifth moments of Λ(c) are used to estimate breaking-wave-supported momentum fluxes, energy dissipation rate, and the fraction of momentum flux supported by air-entraining breaking waves. No indication of a Kolmogorov-type wave energy cascade was found; that is, there is no evidence that the wave energy dissipation is dominated by small-scale waves. The proportionality factor b linking breaking crest distributions to the energy dissipation rate is found to be (7 ± 3) × 10−5, much smaller than previous estimates.

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 score0.006

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations123
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207