MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156387064 · doi:10.1175/jpo-d-12-031.1

Inertial Oscillations in Geostrophic Flow: Is the Inertial Frequency Shifted by ζ/2 or by ζ?

2012· article· en· W2156387064 on OpenAlexaff
Cédric Chavanne, Eric Firing, François Ascani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInertial frame of referenceInertial waveGeostrophic windRotating reference frameReference framePhysicsRotation (mathematics)Frame of referenceVorticityMechanicsFlow (mathematics)Classical mechanicsGeodesyFrame (networking)VortexGeometryMathematicsGeologyOpticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The short answer to the question posed in the title is that it depends on the frame of reference chosen to describe the motions. In the inertial limit, the frequency in a rotating frame of reference corresponds to the rotation rate of the inertial current vectors relative to that frame. When described in a reference frame rotating with a geostrophic flow having a relative vertical vorticity ζ, inertial oscillations have a frequency f + ζ, equal to twice the fluid’s rotation rate around the local vertical axis. From a nonrotating frame of reference, one would measure only half this frequency; the other half arises from describing inertial motions in a reference frame rotating with the background flow. However, when described in a reference frame rotating with Earth, hence rotating at −ζ/2 relative to the geostrophic frame, inertial oscillations have a frequency reduced to f + ζ/2.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207