MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963605565 · doi:10.1357/002224019826887344

Recirculating flow in a basin with closed <i>f/h</i> contours

2019· article· en· W2963605565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander Fuller, Thomas W. N. Haine, E. Kvaleberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaroclinityBathymetryBarotropic fluidOcean gyreRossby numberVorticityPotential vorticityGeologyRossby waveCirculation (fluid dynamics)Vorticity equationVortexOceanographyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A general circulation model is used to study the time evolution of a rotating, weakly baroclinic fluid in a basin with sloping sidewalls. Contours of f/h , where f is the Coriolis parameter and h is the depth of the fluid, are closed in this model. The fluid is forced by a localized source of positive vorticity. The initial response is a narrow, recirculating cell that resembles a β-plume modified by bathymetry. Such cells have been found in previous studies and have been linked to the recirculation cells observed in the subpolar North Atlantic. However, this is not a steady solution in this basin with closed f/h contours, and the circulation evolves into a gyre that encircles the basin. The time at which this transition occurs depends on the Rossby number, with higher Rossby numbers transitioning earlier. Based on the budget of potential vorticity, an argument is made that the western boundary is not long enough to drain significant vorticity from the flow and therefore a bathymetric β-plume is not a steady solution. A similar argument suggests that the Labrador Sea cannot sustain steady, linear, barotropic recirculations either. We speculate that the observed recirculations depend on inertial separation at sharp bathymetric gradients to break the assumption of linearity, which leads to significant viscous dissipation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine ResearchSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207