Bibliographic record
Abstract
The propagation of oceanic internal tides (IT) is influenced by their interactions with balancedvortical ocean flows. Satellite measurements are powerful tools to observe ocean flows globally but lack the temporal resolution to distinguish between balanced and IT flows using harmonic filtering. This presents a challenge for inferring ocean circulation and the propagation of ITs. We take two approaches to determine the strength of their interactions and the resulting impact on measuring ocean flows. The first is an idealized study where we model a plane wave interacting with an isolated (cyclo)geostrophic vortex using shallow water simulations. We vary the Rossby number, Ro, the Burger number, Bu, and the size of the vortex compared to the wave wavelength, K. We measure the percentage of wave energy scattering S for each simulation and find S ∝ (FrK)2 when S < 20, where Fr = Ro/√Bu is the Froude number. When S > 20, S plateaus. In the second approach, we train a deep learning model called U-Net on Boussinesq simulation data, which models a mode-1 IT propagating through quasi-geostrophic flows. The inputs to the model are combinations of the sea surface measurements for velocity U, temperature T, and height H, and the output is the wave component of the height field. Velocity U is the most valuable input, followed by H, and T hardly has any predictive power in isolation. When all three fields are used in combination as input, we obtain close to perfect performance. Lastly, we explore two alternative deep learning models to compare their strengths and weaknesses, namely, a cGAN with a novel spectral loss function, and a so-called deformation model. They do not show obvious improvements over the U-Net. These models give insight into which sea surface variables are most useful for disentangling ITs and balanced flows, and thus where resources should be allocated to ultimately measure ocean circulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".