MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186990770 · doi:10.1175/jpo-d-15-0072.1

Energy Exchanges between Density Fronts and Near-Inertial Waves Reflecting off the Ocean Surface

2015· article· en· W2186990770 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Grisouard, Leif N. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInertial waveInternal wavePhysicsSuperposition principleMechanicsEnergy fluxInviscid flowWind waveNonlinear systemFront (military)Surface waveTurbulenceLongitudinal waveMechanical waveWave propagationMeteorologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inertial waves propagating upward in a geostrophically balanced front experience critical reflections against the ocean surface. Such reflections naturally create oscillations with small vertical scales, and viscous friction becomes a dominant process. Here, friction modifies the polarization relations of internal waves and allows energy from the balanced front to be exchanged with the ageostrophic motions and eventually dissipated. In addition, while in the well-known inviscid case internal waves propagate on only two characteristics, this study demonstrates using an analytical model that strong viscous effects introduce additional oscillatory modes that can exchange energy with the front. Moreover, during a linear, near-critical reflection, the superposition of several of these oscillations induces an even stronger energy exchange with the front. When the Richardson number based on the frontal thermal wind shear is O (1), the rate of energy exchange peaks at wave frequencies that are near inertial and is comparable in magnitude to the energy flux of the incident, upward-propagating waves. Two-dimensional, linear numerical experiments confirm this finding. The analytical model also demonstrates that this process is qualitatively insensitive to the actual value of the viscosity or the form of the boundary condition at the surface. In fully nonlinear experiments, the authors recover these qualitative conclusions. However, nonlinear wave–wave interactions and turbulence in particular, strongly modify the amount of energy that is exchanged with the front. In practice, such nonlinear effects are only active when the incident waves have frequencies higher than the Coriolis frequency, since these configurations are conducive to near-resonant triad interactions between incident and reflected waves.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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