MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Probability Distribution of the Thorpe Displacement within Overturns in Juan de Fuca Strait

2001· article· en· W2026212763 on OpenAlexaff
K. Stansfield, Chris Garrett, Richard Dewey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisplacement (psychology)Probability density functionProbability distributionGeologyMixing (physics)TurbulenceScale (ratio)MeteorologyPhysicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertical mixing in the ocean can sometimes be quantified by measurements of the Thorpe overturning scale, LT. In regions of weak mixing and weak density gradients such measurements may be limited by slow sensor response times (or sampling rates) and/or by lack of resolution and noise in the density measurements. On the other hand, the Thorpe scale can be written as LT = (∫∞0 L2P1(L) dL)1/2, where P1(L) is the probability of the Thorpe displacement, L. Data from Juan de Fuca Strait, British Columbia, show that, even though the probability of a small Thorpe displacement is much greater than that of a large Thorpe displacement, it is the large and more easily resolved values of L that dominate the Thorpe scale. It is found to be possible to determine LT down to a scale of 0.4 m with a conventional conductivity–temperature–depth instrument. This corresponds to values of Kυ ≃ 10−4 m2 s−1 in summertime if LT ≈ (ϵ/N3)1/2, as is confirmed using velocity and temperature microstructure data. Here P1(L) is a convolution of the probability distribution of overturn height, P2(H), with the probability distribution of the fractional displacement within each overturn, P3(L/H). Data show that P2(H) is dominated by small overturns, consistent with previous work on the thickness of turbulence patches. Finally, the distribution of P3(L/H) is examined and compared with the prediction of a very simple kinematic model. The data show a pattern similar to that predicted by the model, though with more small L/H and fewer medium to large L/H than in the model.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations106
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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