MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7010259978

High-Order Spatial Discretization Methods for the Shallow Water Equations

2001· article· en· W7010259978 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDiscretizationShallow water equationsQuadratic equationGalerkin methodWaves and shallow waterHelmholtz equationNumerical analysisCollocation methodRossby number
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new numerical methods for the shallow water equations on a sphere in spherical coordinates. In our implementation, the equations are discretized in time with the two-level semi-Lagrangian semi-implicit (SLSI) method, and in space on a staggered grid with the quadratic spline Galerkin (QSG) and the optimal quadratic spline collocation (OQSC) methods. When discretized on a uniform spatial grid, the solutions are shown through numerical experiments to be fourth-order in space locally at the nodes and midpoints of the spatial grids, and third-order globally. We also show that, when applied to a simplified version of the shallow water equations, each of our algorithms yields a neutrally stable solution for the meteorologically significant Rossby waves. Moreover, we demonstrate that the Helmholtz equation associated with the shallow water equations should be derived algebraically rather than analytically in order for the algorithms to be stable with respect to the Rossby waves. These results are verified numerically using Boyd's equatorial wave equations with initial conditions to generate a soliton. We then analyze the performance of our methods on various staggered grids --- the A-, B-, and C-grids. From an eigenvalue analysis of our simplified version of the shallow water equations, we conclude that, when discretized on the C-grid, our algorithms faithfully capture the group velocity of inertia-gravity waves. Our analysis suggests that neither the A- nor B-grids will produce such good results. Our theoretical results are supported by numerical experiments, in which we discretize Boyd's...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations→French-language works237,207→