MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778042044 · doi:10.1063/1.5004986

Random forcing of geostrophic motion in rotating stratified turbulence

2017· article· en· W2778042044 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael L. Waite

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsGeostrophic windPhysicsForcing (mathematics)TurbulenceVortexEnergy cascadeGravity waveStratified flowsClassical mechanicsMechanicsGeophysicsStratified flowMeteorologyGravitational waveAtmospheric sciencesAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random forcing of geostrophic motion is a common approach in idealized simulations of rotating stratified turbulence. Such forcing represents the injection of energy into large-scale balanced motion, and the resulting breakdown of quasi-geostrophic turbulence into inertia–gravity waves and stratified turbulence can shed light on the turbulent cascade processes of the atmospheric mesoscale. White noise forcing is commonly employed, which excites all frequencies equally, including frequencies much higher than the natural frequencies of large-scale vortices. In this paper, the effects of these high frequencies in the forcing are investigated. Geostrophic motion is randomly forced with red noise over a range of decorrelation time scales τ, from a few time steps to twice the large-scale vortex time scale. It is found that short τ (i.e., nearly white noise) results in about 46% more gravity wave energy than longer τ, despite the fact that waves are not directly forced. We argue that this effect is due to wave–vortex interactions, through which the high frequencies in the forcing are able to excite waves at their natural frequencies. It is concluded that white noise forcing should be avoided, even if it is only applied to the geostrophic motion, when a careful investigation of spontaneous wave generation is needed.

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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207