MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143892474 · doi:10.2112/si73-064.1

Investigation of the Movement Characteristics of West Guangdong Longshore Ocean Current System, China

2015· article· en· W2143892474 on OpenAlexaff
Mingxiao Xie, Shanshan Yao, Wendan Li, Hongbo Zhao, Zhiliang Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coastal Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)Longshore driftMonsoonOceanographyGeologyTidal currentChinaMovement (music)Ocean currentShoreClimatologyGeographySediment transportGeomorphologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xie, M.; Yao, S.; Li, W.; Zhao, H., and Gao, Z., 2015. Investigation of the movement characteristics of West Guangdong longshore ocean current system, China.The West Guangdong Ocean Current (WG current) is a special ocean current flowing along the West Guangdong coastline, China. It has significant impact on the nearshore area, and it will make the nearshore current movement complex after superposing on the tidal currents. A comprehensive investigation of the WG current is mandatory especially to the construction of nearshore harbors. However, at present, the nature of WG current is still not well clarified. Based on a series of filed survey datasets carried out in different representative seasons, the movement characteristics of the WG current are analyzed by using a residual flow extracting method. The results indicate that the WG current direction points to southwest in the entire year, which does not accord with the dominant monsoon direction especially in summer, and the current speed shows significant seasonal variation. The current speed increases at the first 10 km away from shoreline, and then becomes approximately uniform. Besides, the current speed is larger in summer than that in winter.

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)0.002
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 score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.003
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coastal ResearchSame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207