MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032313738 · doi:10.1175/jpo2896.1

What Fraction of a Kelvin Wave Incident on a Narrow Strait Is Transmitted?

2006· article· en· W2032313738 on OpenAlexaff
H. L. Johnson, Chris Garrett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKelvin waveInviscid flowMechanicsPhysicsAdvectionFlux (metallurgy)RADIUSMomentum (technical analysis)Classical mechanicsMeteorologyMaterials scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Parameters governing the fraction of a Kelvin wave transmitted through a narrow gap or channel include time dependence, nonlinearity, friction, and strait geometry, yet only limited regions of this parameter space have been explored. Linear inviscid models (which neglect advective and frictional terms in the momentum equations) predict that 100% of the volume flux of a low-frequency Kelvin wave or steady boundary current incident on a narrow strait is transmitted, even when the strait width becomes infinitesimally small. Here the nonlinear, inviscid, flat bottom problem is considered, and it is shown that, provided the geometry varies slowly, the quasi-steady solution can be found in the rotating-hydraulics literature. In the narrow channel limit the fraction transmitted can be approximated by a simple prediction based on nonrotating hydraulics. Unless an incoming Kelvin wave has a large amplitude in comparison with the background layer depth, the strait width must be considerably smaller than the deformation radius before it limits the volume flux passing through. Results also show that a Kelvin wave of given volume flux will squeeze through a narrower gap if it is pushed rather than pulled.

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)0.000
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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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