Physical modeling of tidal resonance in a submarine canyon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current observations in submarine canyons poleward of 30° are usually dominated by the semidiurnal (M2) tidal frequency, which is superinertial at these latitudes. Observations from a submarine canyon at 44°N (the Gully, Nova Scotia) suggest that canyons can be dominated by the subinertial (K1) tidal frequency if length scales are correct for resonance of the K1 frequency. A model of the Gully was constructed in a tank on a rotating table and tidal currents generated to determine factors that influence resonance. Resonance curves were fit to measurements from the laboratory canyon for a range of stratifications, background rotation rates, and forcing amplitudes. Dense water was observed upwelling onto the continental shelf on either side of the laboratory canyon and traveled at least one canyon width along the shelf. Friction values measured in the laboratory were much higher than expected, probably due to upwelled water surging onto the shelf on each tidal cycle, similar to a tidal bore. By scaling observations from the laboratory to the ocean and assuming friction in the ocean is also affected by water traveling onto the shelf, a resonance curve for the ocean was created. Because of the broad resonance curve, the diurnal tide remains strong year round at the Gully, even as stratification at the shelf break changes. Dense water surging onto the shelf on tidal frequencies may affect friction and mixing at other nonresonant canyons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".