MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330459796 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2012.041

Examination of circulation, flushing time and dispersion in Halifax Harbour of Nova Scotia

2012· article· en· W2330459796 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shiliang Shan, Jinyu Sheng

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlushingHarbourOceanographyForcing (mathematics)GeologyEstuaryNova scotiaTidal currentParticle (ecology)Current (fluid)Circulation (fluid dynamics)Flow (mathematics)Environmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the circulation, flushing time and hydrodynamic connectivity in Halifax Harbour based on three-dimensional currents produced by a multi-nested coastal ocean circulation modelling system. The time-mean currents produced by the modelling system feature two-layer estuarine circulation with a seaward flow in the upper layer and a landward flow in the lower layer in the Harbour. The hydrodynamics in the Harbour are also affected significantly by tides and wind forcing. Based on numerical passive tracer experiments, the estimated e-folding flushing time is about 40 and 90 days in the upper and the entire Bedford Basin, respectively. By comparison, the flushing time is about 2–5 days over the Inner and Outer Harbour, and only about 1 day in the Narrows. Analysis of passive particle trajectories carried by the model currents demonstrates that movements of particles in the Harbour are strongly affected by tidal and storm-induced currents. Hydrodynamic connectivity in the study region is also quantified in terms of a connectivity matrix calculated from particle trajectories.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207