MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139374641 · doi:10.1175/jpo2795.1

Energy Fluxes due to the Surface and Internal Tides in Knight Inlet, British Columbia

2005· article· en· W2139374641 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael W. Stacey, S. Pond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSillInternal tideInletEnergy fluxGeologyFlux (metallurgy)Tidal powerDissipationInternal waveAcoustic Doppler current profilerAtmospheric sciencesMechanicsOceanographyCurrent (fluid)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A laterally integrated (two dimensional) nonlinear numerical model is used to examine the flux of M2 tidal energy in Knight Inlet. The simulated flux of tidal energy into the inlet is somewhat smaller than that estimated using the change in phase of the M2 tidal height along the inlet, a method that does not account for the effect of the internal tide on the surface elevation. The simulated energy flux into the inlet is close to the energy flux of the internal tide away from the sill determined from observations using an acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP). The net flux due to the internal tide is significantly less than (<1/2 of) the rate at which energy is removed from the surface tide. Earlier linear models of the internal tide produced energy fluxes that agreed with those estimated from the phase change of the tidal height but were larger than the fluxes that could be found in the observations. The reason for this discrepancy is not that these simple models neglected nonlinear effects, but rather that they did not take reflections of the internal tide into account. Also, the simulated flux of energy into the inlet less the net flux of internal tidal energy away from the sill is about equal to the simulated dissipation within 2 km on either side of the sill. The simulated net flux of internal tidal energy away from the sill is in agreement with the flux determined from the ADCP observations on the downinlet side of the sill, but not on the upinlet side of the sill. A possible explanation is that only the first internal mode (which is surface intensified) was important on the downinlet side but the first three internal modes were important on the upinlet side. The flux calculation using the ADCP observations took variations in the inlet width into account but did not take depth variations into account; thus, the reflection coefficients of the second and third modes may have been underestimated.

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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207