MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062010018 · doi:10.1029/2008jf001126

Occurrence and orientation of anorbital ripples in near‐shore sands

2009· article· en· W2062010018 on OpenAlexaff
Irene Maier, Alex E. Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyCrestRipplePerpendicularWavelengthClockwiseOrientation (vector space)GeometrySwellRipple marksGeodesyVertical orientationSeabedSeismologyOpticsPhysicsRotation (mathematics)MathematicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The orientation of linear transition ripples (LTRs) relative to incident wave direction is studied using rotary fan beam sonar images and wave and current data from electromagnetic flowmeters in ∼3 m water during SandyDuck97. LTR occurrence is determined objectively with an automatic recognition algorithm. LTRs occurred for RMS wave orbital velocities between 0.15 and 0.35 m s −1 . The ripples were highly two dimensional, and of the anorbital type ( λ 0 / D 50 = 524 to 535, d 0 / D 50 = 4300 to 25,000) with 7.6 cm mean wavelength in 150 μ m median diameter sand. The ripple crests were typically aligned perpendicular to the incident sea‐and‐swell direction: specifically, about 60% of the normals to the crests differ from wave direction by less than 5° and more than 90% by less than 10°. During rapid changes in wave direction, however, ripple orientation adjustment lagged the wave direction by O(1 h). Ripple reorientation occurred piecewise along the crests, with new crest segments sometimes bridging two or more old segments. The 1 h reorientation time scale is longer by several orders of magnitude than the adjustment time based on theoretical bed load transport rate and the ripple volume. As a possible explanation, we suggest that a significant fraction of the transport, more than 90%, bypasses the ripples during orientation adjustment through large angles.

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)0.000
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 score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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