Observations of Tidally Driven Turbulence over Steep, Small-Scale Topography Embedded in the Tasman Slope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Enhanced diapycnal mixing induced by the near-bottom breaking of internal waves is an essential component of the lower meridional overturning circulation. Despite its crucial role in the ocean circulation, tidally driven internal wave breaking is challenging to observe due to its inherently short spatial and temporal scales. We present detailed moored and shipboard observations that resolve the spatiotemporal variability of the tidal response over a small-scale bump embedded in the continental slope of Tasmania. Cross-shore tidal currents drive a nonlinear trapped response over the steep bottom around the bump. The observations are roughly consistent with two-dimensional high-mode tidal lee-wave theory. However, the alongshore tidal velocities are large, suggesting that the alongshore bathymetric variability modulates the tidal response driven by the cross-shore tidal flow. The semidiurnal tide and energy dissipation rate are correlated at subtidal time scales, but with complex temporal variability. Energy dissipation from a simple scattering model shows that the elevated near-bottom turbulence can be sustained by the impinging mode-1 internal tide, where the dissipation over the bump is O(1%) of the incident depth-integrated energy flux. Despite this small fraction, tidal dissipation is enhanced over the bump due to steep topography at a horizontal scale of O(1) km and may locally drive significant diapycnal mixing. Significance Statement Near-bottom turbulent mixing is a key element of the global abyssal circulation. We present observations of the spatiotemporal variability of tidally driven turbulent processes over a small-scale topographic bump off Tasmania. The semidiurnal tide generates large-amplitude transient lee waves and hydraulic jumps that are unstable and dissipate the tidal energy. These processes are consistent with the scattering of the incident low-mode internal tide on the continental slope of Tasmania. Despite elevated turbulence over the bump, near-bottom energy dissipation is small relative to the incident wave energy flux.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".