Intercomparison of Oceansat-2 and ASCAT Winds with In Situ Buoy Observations and Short-Term Numerical Forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea surface winds from the Oceansat-2 scatterometer (OSCAT) are important inputs to Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) recently updated the OSCAT retrieval algorithm in order to generate better products. An attempt has been made in this study to evaluate the updated OSCAT winds using buoy observations and the 6-hour short-term forecasts from the T574L64 model from the National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (NCMRWF) during the 2011 monsoon. The results of the OSCAT evaluation are also compared with those from the Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) on-board the Meteorological Operational Satellite-A (MetOp-A) which were evaluated in the same way. The root mean square differences (RMSDs) for wind speed and direction, are within 2 m s−1 and 20° for both scatterometers. The RMSDs for OSCAT are slightly higher than those for ASCAT, and this difference may be attributed in part to the difference in frequency and resolution of the scatterometer payloads. The bias and standard deviation for ASCAT winds are also lower than those for OSCAT winds with respect to the model short-range forecast, and this can be attributed to the regular assimilation of ASCAT winds in the model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".