Génération d'ondes internes par collisions frontales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ: L'intrusion résultant d'une collision frontale entre deux masses d'eau fortement stratifiées a récemment été décrite comme une potentielle source de génération d'ondes internes solitaires. Cependant, peu d'observations de terrain ont été rapportées. De ce fait, les relations entre les propriétés des ondes générées (longueur d'onde, amplitude, énergie) et les conditions de forçage (épaisseur des couches de surface, cisaillement et nombres de Richardson et de Froude) sont à ce jour, mal comprises. Pour pallier cet inconvénient, plusieurs simulations numériques idéalisées ont été effectuées à l'aide d'un modèle 2-D non-linéaire et non-hydrostatique. L'objectif de ces modélisations est de déterminer des relations empiriques entre les propriétés des ondes internes générées et les conditions initiales en explorant l'espace des paramètres régissant ce mécanisme. Dans cet article, nous présentons les résultats des simulations et des observations de terrain collectées lors des étés 2017 et 2018 dans le fjord du Saguenay. -- Mot(s) clé(s) en français : Ondes internes, collision, front, intrusion. -- ABSTRACT: The intrusion resulting from a frontal collision of two stratified water masses has recently been described as a potential source of generation of internal solitary wavetrains (ISW). However, only a handful of field observations have been reported such that the relationships between the properties of the generated ISW (wavelength, amplitude, energy), and the background and forcing conditions (surface layer thickness, shearing, Richardson and Froude numbers) are misunderstood. To assess this issue, idealized numerical simulations are carried out using a 2D nonlinear and nonhydrostatic model. The objective is to determine empirical relationships between ISW properties and the control condition by exploring the wide parameter space involved in this mechanism. Here we report the results of these numerical simulations and from few observations collected during the 2017 and 2018 summer expeditions in the Saguenay Fjord (Quebec, Canada). -- Mot(s) clé(s) en anglais : Internal waves, collision, front, intrusion.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".