Wave–Current Interaction: A Comparison of Radiation-Stress and Vortex-Force Representations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The vortex-force representation of the wave-averaged effects on currents is compared to the radiation-stress representation in a scaling regime appropriate to coastal and shelf waters. Three-dimensional and vertically integrated expressions for the conservative current equations are obtained in both representations. The vortex-force representation decomposes the main wave-averaged effects into two physically understandable concepts—a vortex force and a Bernoulli head. The vortex force is shown to be the dominant wave-averaged effect on currents. This effect can occur at higher order than the apparent leading order for the radiation-stress representation. Excluding nonconservative effects such as wave breaking, the lowest-order radiation or interaction stress can be completely characterized in terms of wave setup, forcing of long (infragravity) waves, and an Eulerian current whose divergence cancels that of the primary wave Stokes drift. The leading-order, wave-averaged dynamical effects incorporate the vortex force together with material advection by Stokes drift, modified pressure-continuity and kinematic surface boundary conditions, and parameterized representations of wave generation by the wind and breaking near the shoreline.
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.
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 it