MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017081722 · doi:10.1029/2002jc001571

Mass transport between a semienclosed basin and the ocean: Maracaibo System

2003· article· en· W2017081722 on OpenAlexaff
B. Laval, J. Imberger, Angelos N. Findikakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarotropic fluidBaroclinityGeologyFlux (metallurgy)Forcing (mathematics)Structural basinOceanographyEstuarySalinityGeomorphologyClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field data and three‐dimensional numerical (Estuary and Lake Computer Model) simulations are used to investigate exchange between Lake Maracaibo and the Gulf of Venezuela. This exchange occurs along a dredged shipping lane 100 km long and 14 m deep. It is driven by a density difference between the lake and gulf and modulated at tidal and subtidal timescales by water level fluctuations in the gulf propagating to the lake. At tidal frequencies, exchange is modulated by barotropic forcing and nonlinear baroclinic response, leading to a severance of high‐salinity bottom water into seaward and landward segments. Bottom water in the landward segment is moved lakeward along the shipping lane, where it is mixed vertically and flushed out. Subtidal water level fluctuations in the gulf force barotropic currents along the shipping lane, dominating variability of volume and salt flux at timescales of 1–4 weeks. The barotropic component of simulated salt flux decreases from the gulf to the lake, as depth‐averaged salinity decreases, while simulated baroclinic exchange is only 20% of that predicted by quasi‐steady two‐layer hydraulic theory. These reductions in salt flux are due to intense mixing that occurs throughout the shipping lane.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207