effect of density stratification and a cape in a baroclinic western boundary current separation experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western boundary current separation has long been a mystery. For the Gulf Stream, different factors such as the coastal shape, inflow and outflow location, wind stresses, continental shelf slope, shallow underwater plateaus, and interaction with the deep circulation potentially play unique and important roles in separating the Gulf Stream from the coast. To study these effects, a model consisting of a circular tank of water rotating on a spinning table was set up. Sloping planes form the upper and lower boundaries of the enclosed tank, approximating the Coriolis force. Then, water was pumped through gaps in the tank, producing a western boundary current and an artificial cape having the geometry of Cape Hatteras at the Gulf Stream’s point of separation was introduced into the system. Finally, to study the effects of stratification on the point of separation, a 2-layer system was used. The results of varying different parameters, such as flow rate or density difference between layers, were compared with observations of the Gulf Stream and output from a numerical model. Ultimately, the experimental results showed that density differences alone do not affect the separation point to a meaningful degree, but rather that it is the position of inflow and outflow gaps that are much more significant. Density differences alone do not significantly affect the separation point. The relationship between high flow rates tending to create more modes of oscillation and a moving separation point was also observed. More so than any other setup, a cape at high density difference and low flow rate deflects the western boundary current flow. The results suggest that the interplay between the 1-layer and 2-layer modes is relevant to the oceanic case.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".