Estimating the Cross‐Shelf Export of Riverine Materials: Part 1. General Relationships From an Idealized Numerical Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rivers deliver large amounts of terrestrially derived materials (such as nutrients, sediments, and pollutants) to the coastal ocean, but a global quantification of the fate of this delivery is lacking. Nutrients can accumulate on shelves, potentially driving high levels of primary production with negative consequences like hypoxia, or be exported across the shelf to the open ocean where impacts are minimized. Global biogeochemical models cannot resolve the relatively small‐scale processes governing river plume dynamics and cross‐shelf export; instead, river inputs are often parameterized assuming an “all or nothing” approach. Recently, Sharples et al. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005483 proposed the S P number—a dimensionless number relating the estimated size of a plume as a function of latitude to the local shelf width—as a simple estimator of cross‐shelf export. We extend their work, which is solely based on theoretical and empirical scaling arguments, and address some of its limitations using a numerical model of an idealized river plume. In a large number of simulations, we test whether the S P number can accurately describe export in unforced cases and with tidal and wind forcings imposed. Our numerical experiments confirm that the S P number can be used to estimate export and enable refinement of the quantitative relationships proposed by Sharples et al. We show that, in general, external forcing has only a weak influence compared to latitude and derive empirical relationships from the results of the numerical experiments that can be used to estimate riverine freshwater export to the open ocean.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".