MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119649244 · doi:10.1175/jpo-d-20-0268.1

Interaction of Nonlinear Ekman Pumping, Near-Inertial Oscillations, and Geostrophic Turbulence in an Idealized Coupled Model

2021· article· en· W3119649244 on OpenAlexaff
Yanxu Chen, David Straub, Louis-Philippe Nadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeostrophic windSlabAdvectionEkman layerVorticityEkman transportPotential vorticityMechanicsGeologyForcing (mathematics)Mixed layerInertial waveTurbulencePhysicsMomentum (technical analysis)GeophysicsVortexMeteorologyBoundary layerAtmospheric sciencesThermodynamicsWave propagationOceanographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new coupled model is developed to investigate interactions among geostrophic, Ekman, and near-inertial (NI) flows. The model couples a time-dependent nonlinear slab Ekman layer with a two-layer shallow water model. Wind stress forces the slab layer and horizontal divergence of slab-layer transport appears as a forcing in the continuity equation of the shallow water model. In one version of the slab model, self-advection of slab-layer momentum is retained and in another it is not. The most obvious impact of this explicit representation of the surface-layer dynamics is in the high-frequency part of the flow. For example, near-inertial oscillations are significantly stronger when self-advection of slab-layer momentum is retained, this being true both for the slab-layer flow itself and for the interior flow that it excites. In addition, retaining the self-advection terms leads to a new instability, which causes growth of slab-layer near-inertial oscillations in regions of anticyclonic forcing and decay in regions of cyclonic forcing. In contrast to inertial instability, it is the sign of the forcing, not that of the underlying vorticity, that determines stability. High-passed surface pressure fields are also examined and show the surface signature of unbalanced flow to differ substantially depending on whether a slab-layer model is used and, if so, whether self-advection of slab-layer momentum is retained.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207