MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Internal Wave Breaking and Dissipation Mechanisms on the Continental Slope/Shelf

2013· article· en· W2126615891 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin G. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Fluid Mechanics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInternal waveBreaking waveDissipationGeologyShoalMechanicsShoaling and schoolingContinental shelfDispersion (optics)GeophysicsPhysicsWave propagationOceanographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internal waves are important physical phenomena on the continental shelf/slope. They are often very energetic, and their breaking provides an important dissipation and mixing mechanism, with implications for biological productivity and sediment transport. Internal waves appear in a variety of forms and can break in a variety of ways. A consequence of their dispersion properties is the breaking of waves reflecting from, or being generated at, near-critical slopes. Breaking mechanisms associated with internal solitary waves include bottom boundary layer instabilities, shear instabilities in the interior of the water column, and wave overturning as they shoal. Shoaling can result in the formation of waves with trapped cores either at the surface or at the bottom. Theoretical, numerical, and laboratory studies have largely focused on simple geometries, whereas recent work has shown that the situation in the ocean is often much more complicated because of more complex geometries and the presence of a full hierarchy of fluid motions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations289
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Fluid MechanicsSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207