A review of the role of submarine canyons in deep-ocean exchange with the shelf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Cross shelf-break exchange is limited by the tendency of geostrophic flow to follow bathymetric contours, not cross them. However, small scale topography, such as canyons, can reduce the local lengthscale of the flow and increase the local Rossby number. These higher Rossby numbers mean the flow is no longer purely geostrophic and significant cross-isobath flow can occur. This cross-isobath flow includes both upwelling and downwelling due to wind-driven shelf currents and the strong cascading flows of dense shelf-water into the ocean. Tidal currents usually run primarily parallel to the shelf-break topography. Canyons cut across these flows and thus are often regions of generation of strong baroclinic tides and internal waves. Canyons can also focus internal waves. Both processes lead to greatly elevated levels of mixing. Thus, through both advection and mixing processes, canyons can enhance Deep Ocean Shelf Exchange. Here we review the state of the science describing the dynamics of the flows and suggest further areas of research, particularly into quantifying fluxes of nutrients and carbon as well as heat and salt through canyons.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".