Influence of Wind Stress Curl and Bottom Topography on the Transport of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current in a Barotropic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the influence of wind curl on the zonal transport and vorticity of a barotropic flow over topography using an idealized quasigeostrophic model. While previous research focuses on how wind stress sets the zonal mean transport over a ridge using idealized models of the Southern Ocean, the interplay between wind curl and constant wind stress in determining zonal transport remains an open question. It is shown that the injection of vorticity through wind curl creates nonzero westward zonal transport, even when there is zero mean wind stress over the domain, which increases with wind curl. The existence of zonal transport is explained qualitatively through differences in zonal dynamics and further studied quantitatively through analytical solutions of governing equations and results obtained from constant wind stress simulations. Our findings additionally suggest that there are two distinct regimes where the zonal transport is determined by wind curl or the mean wind stress when both are present. The first regime is characterized by formation of gyres and Rossby waves whose strengths and amplitudes grow with increasing wind curl, whereas the second regime is described by zonal flow with formation of standing and transient eddies consistent with earlier studies. We determine that the zonal transport and vorticity of the flow are governed by both nonlocal and local mechanisms in the presence of wind stress curl and further explore the interaction between wind curl and topography across a range of ridge heights. The goal of this work is to shed new light on how wind curl influences the dynamics of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the eddy saturation regime.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".