MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038098501 · doi:10.1002/2013jc009782

Hurricane Sandy storm surges observed by HY‐2A satellite altimetry and tide gauges

2014· article· en· W2038098501 on OpenAlexaff
Nan Chen, Guoqi Han, Jingsong Yang, Dake Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersState Oceanic Administration
KeywordsStorm surgeTide gaugeContinental shelfAltimeterGeologyOceanographySignificant wave heightSea levelStormLandfallSurgeWave heightClimatologySatelliteWind waveGeomorphologyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hurricane Sandy made landfall to the northeast of Atlantic City, New Jersey at 23:30 UTC on 29 October 2012 and caused large storm surges and devastating flooding along the New Jersey and New York coasts. Here we combine sea surface height measurements from the HaiYang‐2A (HY‐2A) satellite altimeter with coastal tide‐gauge data to study the features of the Hurricane Sandy storm surges. The HY‐2A altimeter captured the cross‐shelf profile of surge at the time of Sandy's peak surge, with a surge magnitude of about 1.83 m at the coast and a cross‐shelf decaying scale of 68 km. The altimetric surge magnitude agrees approximately with tide‐gauge estimate of 1.73 m at nearby Montauk. Further analysis suggests that continental shelf waves were generated during the passage of Sandy. The continental shelf wave observed by altimetry has a propagating speed of 6.5 m/s. The post landfall free shelf wave at Atlantic City observed by tide gauges has a propagating phase speed of 6.8 m/s and cross‐shelf e‐folding scale of 75 km. In contrast, the post landfall sea level oscillation at Montauk is not associated with a continental shelf wave. The study indicates that satellite altimetry is capable of observing and useful for understanding features of storm surges, complementing existing coastal tide gauges.

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)0.001
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 score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207