Impact of Wave Interference on the Consistency Relations of Internal Gravity Waves near the Ocean Bottom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistency relations of internal gravity waves (IGWs) describe ratios of cross-spectral quantities as functions of frequency. It has been a common practice to evaluate the measured or simulated signals (e.g., time series of velocity, density, etc.) against the consistency relations, as a way to determine whether an oceanic field of interest is comprised of IGWs. One such study is carried out in Nelson et al. (JGR Oceans, 125(5), 2020, e2019JC015974), which certifies that the ocean interior field in a numerical simulation of a region southwest of Hawaii is dominated by IGWs, through evaluating the consistency relations derived from time series at a depth of 620 m. However, we find that when the same procedure is applied at greater depths (e.g., 2362 m, 3062 m, and 4987 m), a clear deviation of the simulated signal from the classical consistency relations is observed. In this paper, we identify the reason for the unexpected deviation and show that it is a general phenomenon due to interference of low vertical modes under the reflection by the ocean bottom. We further derive a new set of formulae to characterize the consistency relations of these low modes and validate these formulae using model output.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".