MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176163359 · doi:10.1175/jtech1784.1

Estimating Internal Wave Energy Fluxes in the Ocean

2005· article· en· W2176163359 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan D. Nash, Matthew H. Alford, Eric Kunze

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInternal waveSampling (signal processing)GeologyEnergy fluxRidgeDissipationEnergy (signal processing)GeodesyFlux (metallurgy)Energy balanceGeophysicsMeteorologyEnvironmental sciencePhysicsStatisticsMathematicsOceanographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Energy flux is a fundamental quantity for understanding internal wave generation, propagation, and dissipation. In this paper, the estimation of internal wave energy fluxes 〈u′p′〉 from ocean observations that may be sparse in either time or depth are considered. Sampling must be sufficient in depth to allow for the estimation of the internal wave–induced pressure anomaly p′ using the hydrostatic balance, and sufficient in time to allow for phase averaging. Data limitations that are considered include profile time series with coarse temporal or vertical sampling, profiles missing near-surface or near-bottom information, moorings with sparse vertical sampling, and horizontal surveys with no coherent resampling in time. Methodologies, interpretation, and errors are described. For the specific case of the semidiurnal energy flux radiating from the Hawaiian ridge, errors of ∼10% are typical for estimates from six full-depth profiles spanning 15 h.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations262
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207