MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890971636 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2018.980

Deep learning of mixing by two ‘atoms’ of stratified turbulence

2019· article· en· W2890971636 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsMaRSAutodesk (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixing (physics)TurbulenceAnsatzFocus (optics)Artificial neural networkParameter spaceRange (aeronautics)Deep water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current global ocean models rely on ad hoc parameterizations of diapycnal mixing, in which the efficiency of mixing is globally assumed to be fixed at 20 %, despite increasing evidence that this assumption is questionable. As an ansatz for small-scale ocean turbulence, we may focus on stratified shear flows susceptible to either Kelvin–Helmholtz (KHI) or Holmboe wave (HWI) instability. Recently, an unprecedented volume of data has been generated through direct numerical simulation (DNS) of these flows. In this paper, we describe the application of deep learning methods to the discovery of a generic parameterization of diapycnal mixing using the available DNS dataset. We furthermore demonstrate that the proposed model is far more universal compared to recently published parameterizations. We show that a neural network appropriately trained on KHI- and HWI-induced turbulence is capable of predicting mixing efficiency associated with unseen regions of the parameter space well beyond the range of the training data. Strikingly, the high-level patterns learned based on the KHI and weakly stratified HWI are ‘transferable’ to predict HWI-induced mixing efficiency under much more strongly stratified conditions, suggesting that through the application of appropriate networks, significant universal abstractions of density-stratified turbulent mixing have been recognized.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207