MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6973880944 · doi:10.57757/iugg23-4557

Tidal plume internal wave pumping, mixing and cross shelf exchange of sediment and biota in a shallow river plume

2023· article· en· W6973880944 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeDownwellingPanacheInternal waveFront (military)SedimentRidgeShoreSubmarine pipeline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<!--!introduction!--> The Rhine River Plume forms one of the largest Regions of Freshwater Influence (ROFI) in Europe. The formation and evolution of the tidal plume fronts on every ebb tide, and the generation of internal waves ahead of the front were captured by the STRAINS (STRAtification Impacts Near-shore Sediment) field campaign off the Dutch coast. Here we explore the trapping of internal waves generated by multiple tidal plume fronts in the mid-field of the Rhine River Plume. Observations and radar images show that tidal plume fronts propagate all the way to the coast into 2 m of water, as well as their reflection and breaking. Using a hydrostatic model and the field data we explore the interaction of the tidal plume fronts, and relic tidal plume fronts in the near to mid-field plume. As the plume fronts propagate onshore they increase cross-shore mixing and also increase sediment resuspension. Using a non-hydrostatic numerical model we explore how the fronts generate high frequency internal waves, that break and mix as they propagate onshore. We describe a cross-shore frontal pumping mechanism, and show how this impacts near shore mixing, sediment resuspension and offshore transport. Tidal plume fronts are thicker and faster under downwelling winds, in contrast they are thinner and slower under upwelling winds. We consider how this changes during periods of extreme drought and floods. We consider similarities and differences to other river plumes, and how we can apply knowledge from highly sampled river plumes, to remote river plume systems.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)Same topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207