MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165664796 · doi:10.1029/2009gl038986

Evidence for complete and partial surface renewal at an air‐water interface

2009· article· en· W2165664796 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew T. Jessup, William E. Asher, Mohamed A. Atmane, Kapil Phadnis, Christopher J. Zappa, Mark Loewen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterface (matter)Surface (topology)Environmental scienceSurface waterGeologyMeteorologyGeometryPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wind‐wave flume is used to determine the extent to which the thermal boundary layer (TBL) at a wind‐forced air‐water interface is completely renewed from below. We measure skin temperature, T skin , radiometrically, temperature immediately below the TBL, T subskin , using a temperature profiler, and net heat flux using the gradient flux technique. The T skin probability density function, p ( T skin ), and surface renewal time scale, τ , were measured using passive and active infrared imaging techniques, respectively. We find that the mean percentile rank of T subskin in p ( T skin ) is 99.90, implying that complete surface renewal occurs. This result suggests an alternative to radiometric measurement of T skin through the simple combination of an infrared camera and an in situ temperature sensor. Comparison of the temperature difference across the TBL to the expected cooling implies that a significant portion of events only partially renew the TBL. This result should impact efforts to improve air‐sea transfer models.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207