MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288150939 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-15-0167.1

Rates of Dissipation of Turbulent Kinetic Energy in a High Reynolds Number Tidal Channel

2016· article· en· W2288150939 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justine McMillan, Alex E. Hay, Rolf G. Lueck, Fabian Wolk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissipationTurbulenceAcoustic Doppler current profilerTurbulence kinetic energyReynolds numberKinetic energyBuoyMechanicsChannel (broadcasting)MeteorologyGeologyPhysicsEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesCurrent (fluid)OceanographyClassical mechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ability to estimate the rate of dissipation ( ε ) of turbulent kinetic energy at middepth in a high-speed tidal channel using broadband acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) is assessed by making comparisons to direct measurements of ε obtained using shear probes mounted on a streamlined underwater buoy. The investigation was carried out in Grand Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada, where the depth-averaged flow speed reached 2 m s −1 and the Reynolds number was 8 × 10 7 . The speed bin–averaged dissipation rates estimated from the ADCP data agree with the shear probe data to within a factor of 2. Both the ADCP and the shear probe measurements indicate a linear dependence of ε on the cube of the flow speed during flood and much lower dissipation rates during ebb. The ebb–flood asymmetry and the small-scale intermittency in ε are also apparent in the lognormal distributions of the shear probe data. Possible sources of bias and error in the ε estimates are investigated, and the most likely causes of the discrepancy between the ADCP and shear probe estimates are the cross-channel separation of the instruments and the high degree of spatial variability that exists in the channel.

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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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