MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974832012 · doi:10.1117/12.981644

Measurements of IR propagation in the marine boundary layer during the September 2011 SQUIRREL trial

2012· article· en· W1974832012 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lars T. Heen, Arthur D. van Rheenen, Eirik Glimsdal

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsBuoyPlanetary boundary layerEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingIntensity (physics)Atmospheric opticsSea trialBoundary layerGeologyMeteorologyGeodesyAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsOpticsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multinational field trial (SQUIRREL) was performed at the Eckernförder Bucht, in the Baltic Sea, during September 2011 to study infrared ship signature and atmospheric propagation effects close to the sea surface in a cool environment. In this paper mid-wave infrared camera recordings of ship-mounted sources are analyzed. The camera was positioned about 6 m above mean sea level. Several meteorology stations - mounted on land, on a pier and on a buoy - were used to characterize the propagation environment, while sensor heights were logged continuously. Both sub- and superrefractive conditions were studied. Measurements are compared to results from an earlier field trial performed at Chesapeake Bay, in 2006, during warm and humid atmospheric conditions. The ship-mounted sources - two calibrated blackbody sources at 200 °C and 100 °C - were used to study contrast intensity and intensity fluctuations as a function of distance. The distance to the apparent horizon is also determined. Measurement results are compared to results from the IR Boundary Layer Effects Model (IRBLEM), and good agreement is found.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207