MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532335106 · doi:10.1002/2013jc008939

Introduction to special section on The U.S. IOOS Coastal and Ocean Modeling Testbed

2013· article· en· W1532335106 on OpenAlexaff
Richard A. Luettich, Lynn Donelson Wright, Richard P. Signell, Carl T. Friedrichs, John Harding, Katja Fennel, Eoin Howlett, Sara Graves, Elizabeth Smith, Gary Crane, Rebecca Baltes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityCyberinfrastructureTestbedComputer scienceSpecial sectionWork (physics)Ocean observationsOceanographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceData scienceMeteorologyEngineeringGeographyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong and strategic collaborations among experts from academia, federal operational centers, and industry have been forged to create a U.S. IOOS Coastal and Ocean Modeling Testbed (COMT). The COMT mission is to accelerate the transition of scientific and technical advances from the coastal and ocean modeling research community to improved operational ocean products and services. This is achieved via the evaluation of existing technology or the development of new technology depending on the status of technology within the research community. The initial phase of the COMT has addressed three coastal and ocean prediction challenges of great societal importance: estuarine hypoxia, shelf hypoxia, and coastal inundation. A fourth effort concentrated on providing and refining the cyberinfrastructure and cyber tools to support the modeling work and to advance interoperability and community access to the COMT archive. This paper presents an overview of the initiation of the COMT, the findings of each team and a discussion of the role of the COMT in research to operations and its interface with the coastal and ocean modeling community in general. Detailed technical results are presented in the accompanying series of 16 technical papers in this special issue.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1120.043

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207