MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092053915 · doi:10.1086/497354

Origin of Tidal Dissipation in Jupiter. I. Properties of Inertial Modes

2005· article· en· W2092053915 on OpenAlexaff
Yanqin Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInertial wavePhysicsDissipationInertial frame of referenceJupiter (rocket family)Classical mechanicsAmplitudeMechanicsWavelengthNormal modeWavenumberRADIUSWave propagationQuantum mechanicsVibrationSpacecraftLongitudinal waveMechanical wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study global inertial modes with the purpose of unraveling the role they play in the tidal dissipation process of Jupiter. For spheres of uniformly rotating, neutrally buoyant fluid, we show that the partial differential equation governing inertial modes can be separated into two ordinary differential equations when the density is constant or when the density has a power-law dependence on radius. For more general density dependencies, we show that one can obtain an approximate solution to the inertial modes that is accurate to the second order in wavevector. Frequencies of inertial modes are limited to ω < 2Ω (Ω is the rotation rate), with modes propagating closer to the rotation axis having higher frequencies. An inertial mode propagates throughout much of the sphere with a relatively constant wavelength and a wave amplitude that scales with density as 1/ . It is reflected near the surface at a depth that depends on latitude, with the depth being much shallower near the special latitudes θ = ±ω/2Ω. Around this region, this mode has the highest wave amplitude as well as the sharpest spatial gradient (the "singularity belt"), thereby incurring the strongest turbulent dissipation. Inertial modes naturally cause small Eulerian density perturbations, so they are only weakly coupled to the tidal potential. In a companion paper, we attempt to apply these results to the problem of tidal dissipation in Jupiter.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations95
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207