MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1996305998 · doi:10.1029/2012jc008384

Selecting a first‐guess sea surface temperature field as input to forward radiative transfer models

2012· article· en· W1996305998 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Korak Saha, Alexander Ignatov, Xing Ming Liang, Prasanjit Dash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)Sea surface temperatureRadiative transferSatelliteMeteorologyComputer scienceAtmospheric radiative transfer codesRemote sensingGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advanced Clear‐Sky Processor for Oceans (ACSPO), developed at National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, reports observed top‐of‐atmosphere clear‐sky brightness temperatures (BT) in AVHRR channels 3B (3.7), 4 (11), and 5 (12μm) along with the sea surface temperatures (SST) retrieved from these BTs as a level 2 (L2) product. Additionally, ACSPO provides the corresponding BTs simulated with Community Radiative Transfer Model (CRTM), using Reynolds daily Level 4 (L4) optimum interpolation SST (OISST) and NCEP‐GFS profiles as inputs. Accuracy of simulated BTs is critical for ACSPO functionalities, including detecting clouds, retrieving physical SSTs, monitoring sensor performance, and validating CRTM. This paper tests 11 gap‐free gridded L4 SSTs for their potential use as first‐guess fields in ACSPO to improve accuracy of simulated BTs. As a first step toward the objective, this study checks for consistency between various L4 products and ACSPO L2 SSTs. This SST consistency was shown earlier to be representative of, and equivalent to, the consistency between measured and simulated BTs, thus avoiding expensive CRTM calculations. The metrics employed in L4 comparisons include the global spatial L4‐L2 SST biases and variances and their temporal stability. Also, the effect of L4 fields on the corresponding satellite‐to‐satellite consistency (calculated as L2‐L2 double differences) is examined. Several L4 products, including the GHRSST Multi‐Product Ensemble and Canadian Meteorological Centre analysis (CMC‐0.2°), show better consistency with ACSPO L2 SST and will be explored in the future versions of ACSPO.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→