MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361204416 · doi:10.1029/2022gl102502

Intermittent Generation of Internal Solitary‐Like Waves on the Northern Shelf of the South China Sea

2023· article· en· W4361204416 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaolin Bai, Kevin G. Lamb, Zhiyu Liu, Jianyu Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInternal tideGeologyOceanographyForcing (mathematics)Seafloor spreadingContinental shelfInternal waveClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting the occurrence of internal solitary‐like waves (ISWs) is important for parameterizing turbulent dissipation. ISWs in the northern South China Sea (SCS) are well understood to mainly originate from the Luzon Strait (LS). They are generally predictable due to their phase‐locked relation with tidal forcing in the LS. However, irregular occurrence of ISWs is noted from our 9‐day moored measurements on the SCS shelf. More energetic ISWs unexpectedly appeared during the neap tide than the spring tide. Their occurrence was related to subtidal shelf flows. The tidal and shelf flows had comparable magnitudes. We thus hypothesize that when the total flow meets critical conditions ISWs are generated locally over irregular seafloor. This hypothesis is supported by numerical experiments and validated by observations. Consequently, local generation of ISWs enhances both the intensity and complexity of internal wave field on the shelf, and thus the unpredictability of ISW occurrence.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207