MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044163408 · doi:10.1029/2007jc004522

Resonant modulation of the flow in a tidal channel

2008· article· en· W2044163408 on OpenAlexaff
Julia C. Mullarney, Alex E. Hay, Anthony J. Bowen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoveGeologyHelmholtz resonatorBaySeicheAmplitudeOscillation (cell signaling)Mean flowMechanicsOceanographyPhysicsGeomorphologyTurbulenceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coupling between a quarter‐wave resonance in a coastal bay and a Helmholtz mode in an adjacent cove (connected to the bay through a narrow channel) is investigated by comparing field measurements to analytical and numerical model predictions. Pressure and velocity spectra from locations throughout the bay reveal an oscillation with a period of approximately 1 hour, consistent with a quarter‐wave seiche mode. The associated sea surface displacements throughout the bay are small (less than 5 cm RMS, i.e., only 10% of the tidal elevation). Velocities within the channel are significantly modulated in the 1‐hour band, with amplitudes up to 40% of the peak tidal current. The analytical model shows that the modulation of the channel flow results from the interaction between the quarter‐wave mode in the main basin and a Helmholtz resonance in the cove, also with a period near 1 hour. The amplitude and phase of the 1‐hour oscillation varies through the tidal cycle because of the change in Helmholtz frequency with tidal elevation. Good quantitative agreement between the data and the model predictions is obtained if a drag coefficient approximately 3–4 times larger than the classical value of 3 × 10 −3 is used in the channel and cove.

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)0.001
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 score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207