Best practices recommendations for estimating dissipation rates from shear probes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a part of the Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (SCOR) Working Group #160 “Analyzing ocean turbulence observations to quantify mixing” (ATOMIX), we have developed recommendations on best practices for estimating the rate of dissipation of kinetic energy, ε , from measurements of turbulence shear using shear probes. The recommendations provided here are platform-independent and cover the conceivable range of dissipation rates in the ocean, seas, and other natural waters. They are applicable to commonly deployed platforms that include vertical profilers, fixed and moored instruments, towed profilers, submarines, self-propelled ocean gliders, and other autonomous underwater vehicles. The procedure for preparing the shear data for spectral estimation is discussed in detail, as are the quality control metrics that should accompany each estimate of ε . The methods are illustrated using a high-quality ‘benchmark’ dataset, while potential pitfalls are demonstrated with a second dataset containing common faults.
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 | 0.029 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.025 |
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".