MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081142956 · doi:10.1029/2004jc002603

On the dense bubble clouds and near bottom turbulence in the surf zone

2005· article· en· W2081142956 on OpenAlexaff
Svein Vagle, Peter Chandler, David M. Farmer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNorth Pacific Marine Science OrganizationFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurf zoneBuoyancyBubbleTurbulenceGeologyRip currentBreaking waveNeutral buoyancyTurbulence kinetic energyDissipationMechanicsGeophysicsPhysicsShoreOceanographyOpticsWave propagation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements of high‐frequency (100 kHz) acoustical backscatter in the surf zone have identified the presence of a wall formed by dense assemblages of bubbles generated by breaking gravity waves and persisting for periods up to 30 min. These bubbles are advected by alongshore and cross‐shore rip currents and are controlled by the local wave field, turbulence, dissolution, and buoyancy. During the summer of 2000 the location of the bubble wall south of Scripps Pier, California, was tracked for a 6‐week period. Distinct categories of bubble wall defined by the backscatter intensity data are observed, distinguished by the presence or absence of rip current activity. The results suggest that presence or absence of long‐period waves (10–20 s) may play a role in controlling the bubble wall type. During periods without rip currents the location of the bubble wall is controlled by the incoming wave field. Simultaneous turbulence dissipation measurements 0.4 m above the seafloor show clear dependence on the local water depth beneath incoming waves. The acoustical backscatter data are interpreted using in situ bubble and turbulence measurements in conjunction with a simple model based on bubble sorting by buoyancy, dissolution, and turbulence.

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 score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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