MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402027326 · doi:10.31223/x56x3q

Two-dimensional Ekman-Inertial Instability: A comparison with Inertial Instability

2024· preprint· en· W4402027326 on OpenAlexaff
Fabiola Trujano-Jiménez, Varvara Zemskova, Nicolas Grisouard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstabilityInertial frame of referencePhysicsInertial waveRichtmyer–Meshkov instabilityMechanicsClassical mechanicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the ocean, submesoscale flows tend to undergo several hydrodynamic instabilities. In particular, Inertial Instability (InI) and Ekman-Inertial Instability (EII) are known to develop in geostrophically balanced barotropic flows whose lateral shear is larger in magnitude and opposite in sign to the Coriolis parameter. Although these instabilities share some elements, their dynamical nature can lead to fundamental differences. However, the current analytical description of EII is one-dimensional, which makes it difficult to compare against InI in a more realistic scenario. To overcome this limitation, we conduct two-dimensional numerical simulations of both InI and EII in a submesoscale jet and explore the induced vertical flow, the growth rate, and the energetics of each instability. Furthermore, we investigate the sensitivity of our results to variations in the minimum Rossby number of the jet. We find that EII grows faster than InI and induces stronger vertical flow, especially near the surface. Both instabilities radiate inertial waves away from the current, and these waves predominantly propagate across the anticyclonic side of the jet. Finally, when the instabilities weaken, the fluid reaches a stable state that is remarkably similar in both cases. This study highlights the similarities and differences between InI and EII and provides further insight into the mechanism behind EII that makes it capable of outcompeting other submesoscale instabilities.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations→French-language works237,207→