MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026203433 · doi:10.1080/01431160802555879

Speed ambiguity in hurricane wind retrieval from SAR imagery

2009· article· en· W2026203433 on OpenAlexafffund
Hui Shen, Yijun He, William Perrie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of Oceanography
FundersEuropean Space AgencyCanadian Space AgencyChinese Academy of SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWind speedSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingStormRange (aeronautics)Maximum sustained windRadarWind directionAmbiguityMeteorologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeographyWind gradientTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under strong ocean surface wind conditions, the normalized radar cross section of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is dampened at certain incident angles, compared with the signals under moderate winds. This causes a wind speed ambiguity problem in wind speed retrievals from SAR, because two solutions may exist for each backscattered signal. This study shows that the problem is ubiquitous in the images acquired by operational space‐borne SAR sensors. Moreover, the problem is more severe for the near range and range travelling winds. To remove this ambiguity, a method was developed based on characteristics of the hurricane wind structure. A SAR image of Hurricane Rita (2005) was analysed to demonstrate the wind speed ambiguity problem and the method to improve the wind speed retrievals. Our conclusions suggest that a speed ambiguity removal algorithm must be used for wind retrievals from SAR in intense storms and hurricanes.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207