Coincident reflection images of the Gulf Stream from seismic and hydrographic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of seismic oceanography requires direct comparison of seismic data to high‐resolution oceanographic measurements over long horizontal scales. Here, we compare multichannel seismic (MCS) reflection images to 300 km of spatially‐coincident, high‐resolution (<1 km) expendable bathythermograph (XBT) surveys that were collected near a frontal region of the Gulf Stream. Fronts, eddies, tendrils, and interleaving were among the features identified in both data sets. In some cases, identification of features would be difficult if only hydrographic data were collected at conventional spatial scales. Comparing MCS reflection images with others derived purely from hydrographic data reveal many similarities and show that interleaving can be clearly identified with seismic methods. Varied time lags between MCS and hydrographic data collection identified the need for the separation between collecting both data sets to be short (i.e. hours to days), with advective processes and decorerlation time scales of desired features affecting acceptable sampling strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".