MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322742554 · doi:10.3390/jmse11030531

Variations of Bottom Boundary Layer Turbulence under the Influences of Tidal Currents, Waves, and Raft Aquaculture Structure in a Shallow Bay

2023· article· en· W4322742554 on OpenAlexaff
Renfu Fan, Hao Wei, Youyu Lu, Liang Zhao, Wei Zhao, Hongtao Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTurbulence kinetic energyTurbulenceBoundary layerInertial waveReynolds stressTidal powerEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesGeologyMeteorologyMechanicsOceanographyPhysicsWave propagationOpticsMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-frequency measurements of tides, waves, and turbulence were made using the bottom-mounted tripod equipped with the Nortek 6-MHz acoustic Doppler velocimetry during 20–23 February 2016 (winter) and 12–26 June 2017 (summer) in Heini Bay, Yellow Sea. The synchro-squeezed wavelet transform was applied for wave-turbulence decomposition, and an iterative procedure was developed to identify the turbulence inertial subrange in the bottom boundary layer. The analysis results reveal the dependency of the inertial subrange on the tidal current and turbulence intensities. The flood-ebb tidal flows are different between the summer and winter seasons, without and with the presence of dense raft aquaculture for kelp, respectively. In summer, the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), turbulent Reynolds stress (TRS), and dissipation rate (ε) of TKE increase smoothly with the increasing tidal flow magnitude, and ε is approximately in balance with TKE production related to the vertical shear. The presence of heavy kelp aquaculture in winter causes the reduction in flow speeds and TRS, while keeping TKE and ε at high levels.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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