MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045987610 · doi:10.1029/2006jc003924

Surface current effects on the fetch‐limited growth of wave energy

2007· article· en· W2045987610 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brian K. Haus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsFetchCurrent (fluid)Surface waveGeologyVorticityEnergy currentWind waveWave shoalingGeophysicsAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyPhysicsWave propagationEnergy (signal processing)Longitudinal waveOpticsGeomorphologyVortexOceanographyMechanical wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To study the fetch‐limited growth of wind wave energy over a region with significant lateral shear of the current field, this study exploited data obtained from two linear phased‐array High Frequency (HF) radar systems. Both the near‐surface currents and wave energy and period were mapped over the highly sheared inshore boundary of the Florida Current. The wave energy growth during two periods when the winds were steady for >12 hours and were directed offshore was computed over a range of fetches from 5 to 45 km. The observed energy growth rates were significantly (∼50 %) lower than predicted by the Donelan et al. (1992) empirical formulation over the high vorticity region. The reduced growth rate was consistent with a shift of the wind stress direction into the current direction due to refraction of the wave field. Dimensionless wave energy increased by as much as 100% over neighboring values when the vertical component of the surface current vorticity was a global minimum. While trapping and enhancement of wave energy is predicted by wave ray theory, it has never before been confirmed within the Florida Current with coincident wave and current measurements.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207