MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071729897 · doi:10.1175/jpo2898.1

Lateral Reynolds Stress and Eddy Viscosity in a Coastal Strait

2006· article· en· W2071729897 on OpenAlexaff
Keir Colbo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddyReynolds stressTurbulence modelingTurbulenceGeologyMechanicsViscosityReynolds numberFlow (mathematics)Wind stressShear stressMean flowOceanographyMeteorologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The lateral Reynolds stress uυ, representing the transfer of along-strait momentum toward the sides of Juan de Fuca Strait, is measured with an array of ADCPs. The contributions to the stress from a number of frequency bands are analyzed to highlight the roles of different processes. Motion in a frequency band that includes internal waves and Doppler-shifted subinertial eddies gives a Reynolds stress that, when scaled by the observed shear, is consistent with an eddy viscosity of O(10 m2 s−1). This viscosity acts on the tides and the estuarine flow. The tides can also impart a viscous stress upon the low-frequency estuarine flow. These tidal currents, although strong, are largely nondivergent within the area of the array and thus appear to be less important for the cross-strait transfer of momentum. The long-term mean estuarine circulation can be acted upon by meanders of the estuarine flow, defined as features with periods of 3–5 days. These meanders are found to also have a horizontal eddy viscosity of O(10 m2 s−1). The measured Reynolds stress divergences are consistent with both the strongly curved profile of the estuarine mean flow and also the more slablike tidal current profile. This paper represents the first direct calculation of eddy viscosity on the medium-sized scale of the array, O(1 km).

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207