MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017716844 · doi:10.2478/v10085-009-0031-6

Surface wind speed probability distribution in the Southeast Pacific of Marine Stratus and Stratocumulus regions

2009· article· en· W2017716844 on OpenAlexafffund
Yanping He

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Geosciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of VictoriaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSkewnessMarine stratocumulusEnvironmental scienceClimatologyWind speedSubmarine pipelineAtmospheric sciencesGeologyMeteorologyOceanographyAerosolGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Probability distributions of surface wind speeds (SWS) near coastal regions are needed for applications such as estimating offshore wind power and ocean surface fluxes and for offshore wind risk assessments. Ocean surface wind speed probability distribution (PDF) is characterized using three-year QuikSCAT and AIRS satellite observations in the southeast Pacific of marine stratus and stratocumulus (MSC) regions. Seasonal variation is removed from wind statistics. It was found that the observed SWS standard deviation has a linear positive relationship with its mean SWS; while the SWS skewness decreases with mean SWS in regimes of strong winds and increases with mean SWS in regimes of weak winds. A simple 1D conceptual model is developed near the Peruvian region, which successfully reproduces the observed relationship between higher moments of SWS and its mean value. The model based physical picture among ocean surface winds, SST, and marine boundary clouds are supported by three-year QuikSCAT surface wind observations and fifteen-year ERA40 re-analysis data. Model sensitive tests suggest that large-scale divergence, and strengths of momentum and cloud fluctuations have significant effects on the ocean SWS-PDF in marine stratus and stratocumulus regions.

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)0.001
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen GeosciencesSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207