MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110331018 · doi:10.1029/2006gl028170

Hotspots of deep ocean mixing on the Oregon continental slope

2007· article· en· W2110331018 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan D. Nash, Matthew H. Alford, Eric Kunze, Kim I. Martini, Samuel M. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTurbulenceBarotropic fluidContinental shelfTurbulence kinetic energyBathymetryStratification (seeds)OceanographyRidgeInternal tideGeophysicsMeteorologyInternal wavePhysicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two deep ocean hotspots of turbulent mixing were found over the Oregon continental slope. Thorpe‐scale analyses indicate time‐averaged turbulent energy dissipation rates of ε > 10−7 W/kg and eddy diffusivities of Kρ ∼ 10−2 m2/s at both hotspots. However, the structure of turbulence and its generation mechanism at each site appear to be different. At the 2200‐m isobath, sustained >100‐m high turbulent overturns occur in stratified fluid several hundred meters above the bottom. Turbulence shows a clear 12.4‐h periodicity proposed to be driven by flow over a nearby 100‐m tall ridge. At the 1300‐m isobath, tidally‐modulated turbulence of similar intensity is confined within a stratified bottom boundary layer. Along‐slope topographic roughness at scales not resolved in global bathymetric data sets appears to be responsible for the bulk of the turbulence observed. Such topography is common to most continental slopes, providing a mechanism for turbulence generation in regions where barotropic tidal currents are nominally along‐isobath.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations131
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207