MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090660547 · doi:10.3137/oc316.2010

Modelling stratification and baroclinic flow in the estuarine transition zone of the St. Lawrence estuary

2010· article· en· W2090660547 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Rachel D. Simons, Stephen G. Monismith, François J. Saucier, Ladd E. Johnson, Gesche Winkler

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesFondation de l’Université LavalAmerican Association of University WomenU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBaroclinityStratification (seeds)EstuaryBarotropic fluidEstuarine water circulationOceanographyGeologyBuoyancyStratified flowInletSalinityTurbulenceMeteorologyGeographyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a hydrodynamic study of the St. Lawrence Estuary's estuarine transition zone, a 100 km region where fresh water from the river mixes with salt water from the estuary. The circulation of the estuarine transition zone is driven by strong tides, a large river flow, and well‐defined salinity gradients. For this study, a three‐dimensional hydrodynamic model was applied to the estuarine transition zone of the St. Lawrence Estuary and used to examine stratification and density‐driven baroclinic flow. The model was calibrated to field observations and subsequently predicted water level elevations, along‐channel currents, and salinity with mean errors of less than 9%, 11%, and 17%, respectively. The baroclinic density‐driven currents were distinguished from the tidal barotropic currents by using principal component analysis. Stratification and baroclinic flow were observed to vary throughout the estuarine transition zone on tidal and subtidal spring‐neap time scales. On a semidiurnal tidal time scale, stratification was periodic, and baroclinic flow was represented by pulses of sheared exchange flow, suggesting that neither buoyancy forcing nor turbulent mixing is dominant at this scale. On a subtidal spring‐neap time scale, stratification and baroclinic flow varied inversely with tidal energy, increasing on weak neap tides and decreasing on strong spring tides.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207