MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106272111 · doi:10.1175/2398.1

Simulations of Dissipative, Shore-Oblique Infragravity Waves

2003· article· en· W2106272111 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen M. Henderson, A. J. Bowen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam TrustsAndrew W. Mellon Foundation
KeywordsInfragravity waveShoreDissipationDissipative systemGeologyPhysicsWind waveGeophysicsMechanical waveWave propagationOblique caseLongitudinal waveOpticsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A model of forced, dissipative shore-oblique shallow water waves predicts net cross-shore infragravity wave propagation, in qualitative agreement with field observations. Forcing applied near the shore generates edge waves, whose energy is mostly trapped shoreward of the edge wave turning point. Forcing applied sufficiently far seaward of the turning point generates only evanescent waves, whose energy decays almost exponentially with distance from regions of forcing. Weakly dissipative edge waves are nearly cross-shore standing, whereas strongly dissipative edge waves propagate obliquely across-shore. Groups of directionally spread incident waves can nonlinearly force evanescent bound waves, which propagate shoreward, lowering the sea level under large incident waves. Unlike the bound waves described by previous researchers, evanescent bound waves are not released when incident waves break and do not radiate far from the breakpoint. Regions of evanescent waves between the shoreface and shore-parallel sandbars are barriers to energy transport, which can decouple bar- and shore-trapped waves even when dissipation is weak.

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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207