MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967814523 · doi:10.1175/2007jpo3724.1

The Influence of Air–Sea Roughness, Sea Spray, and Storm Translation Speed on Waves in North Atlantic Storms

2008· article· en· W1967814523 on OpenAlexaff
Weiqing Zhang, William Perrie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormSignificant wave heightWind speedDragWind waveGeologySea sprayWave heightMeteorologyStorm trackAtmospheric sciencesDust stormMechanicsPhysicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A coupled atmosphere–wave–sea spray model system is used to evaluate the impact of sea spray and wave drag on storm-generated waves, their height variations, and directional wave spectra in relation to the storm location and translation speed. Results suggest that the decrease or increase of significant wave height due to spray and wave drag is most significant in high-wind regions to the right of the storm track. These processes are modulations on the maximum-wave region and tend to occur several hours after the peak wind events, depending on the storm translation velocity. The translation speed of the storm is important. The directional variation between local winds and wind-generated waves within rapidly moving storms that outrun the waves is notably different from that of trapped waves, when the dominant waves’ group velocity approximates the storm translation speed. While wave drag and spray can increase or reduce the magnitudes of wind and significant wave height, their nondirectional formulations allow them to have little apparent effect on the directional wave spectra.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207