Circulation and turbulent exchange characteristics during the thermal bar in Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We made observations from vertical moorings of thermistors and current meters in Lake Ontario to study the spring thermal bar circulation, its effect in inhibiting the horizontal mixing, and spatial and temporal variability of vertical mixing during this period. Thermal bar progression rates were compared with two analytical models; both produced overestimates during the early part of the thermal bar and underestimates during the late spring. In a zone between the shore and the thermal bar, currents were influenced by the local wind stress and flowed in a counterclockwise direction. The mean cross‐shore flows in the nearshore zone were reduced during the thermal bar period. The alongshore horizontal exchange coefficients were higher than cross‐shore exchange coefficients. During the thermal bar period, the magnitude of both alongshore and cross‐shore exchange coefficients decreased when the bar was still within middepth (<40 m); when it was further offshore, the thermal bar did not have any significant effect on alongshore exchange coefficients, but cross‐shore exchanges decreased marginally. The vertical exchange coefficients were high in the water column because of convective mixing during the thermal bar period. During the evolution of spring thermal bar, the vertical mixing decreased considerably in the nearshore regions under stable stratification, whereas the high vertical mixing levels continued in the offshore region for a longer period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".