Recent Study on Tidal Resonance in the Gulf of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gulf of Thailand (GOT) is characterised by diurnal tides, which may indicate that the gulf's resonance frequency is close to one cycle per day. The standard quarter-wavelength resonance hypothesis, however, fails to produce a diurnal resonant frequency when applied to the gulf. Therefore, the mechanism of the resonance in the gulf should examined. There is a lot of scholarly interest in the GOT's resonant responses to tidal and storm forcings. In this work, we first conduct a series of numerical experiments that reveal that the gulf has a strong reaction approximately one cycle per day and that the resonance of the South China Sea main area has a vital impact on the gulf's resonance. In contrast, the Gulf of Thailand has little impact on the main area of the South China Sea. This work then establishes an idealised two-channel model that can adequately explain the dynamics of the tidal resonance in the Gulf of Thailand. We discover that the quarter-wavelength resonance theory can describe the resonant frequency in the South China Sea main area around one cycle per day, and that the large-amplitude response at this frequency in the Gulf of Thailand is primarily a passive reaction of the gulf to the increased amplitude of the wave in the southern part of the South China Sea main area.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".