MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026570060 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2011.558468

Performance of Nowcast and Forecast Wave Models for Lunenburg Bay, Nova Scotia

2011· article· en· W2026570060 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ryan P. Mulligan, William Perrie, B. Toulany, Peter Smith, Alex E. Hay, Anthony J. Bowen

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsBayWave modelWind wave modelSignificant wave heightMeteorologySwellNova scotiaWind waveClimatologyEnvironmental scienceWave heightCold waveStormGeologyAtmospheric sciencesOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results from a numerical modelling system are presented for wave prediction inside Lunenburg Bay. The Bay, typical of the coast in Atlantic Canada, is an environment where ocean swell enters only from selected directions; wind-sea dominates the wave spectrum from other directions, and shallow water physics are important. The modelling system consisted of wave models for both the present time (nowcasts) and forecasts using the Simulating Waves Nearshore (SWAN) model inside the Bay. Nowcasts (stationary computations of the wave field that ran every 30 minutes) were driven by real-time observations of the directional wave boundary conditions, winds and water levels. Forecasts (48 hourly non-stationary computations) were driven by boundary conditions from the WAVEWATCH III ocean wave model (implemented on a larger domain) and winds from the Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) atmospheric model. The results were compared with wave observations inside the Bay and provided in real-time. Model performance was assessed for a storm event with 2.8 m significant wave heights that occurred in October 2007, by comparing nowcast predictions, forecast predictions and observations. The nowcasts provided the best correlation, R2 = 0.75, with observations inside the Bay, since they were driven by observations made at the model boundary. The forecasts tended to underpredict the significant wave height and peak period, but overall the model results compared well with the data over a wide range of wind and wave conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207