A Hurricane Tangential Wind Profile Estimation Method for C-Band Cross-Polarization SAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hurricane tangential wind profiles are routinely observed by aircraft reconnaissance in order to estimate the surface winds. However, these wind profile estimates are occasionally biased because along-track aircraft observations might not determine the nonaxisymmetric hurricane structure characteristics. In this paper, we resolve this problem by calculating the mean wind speed in all radial directions using cross-polarization SAR wide-swath images. Moreover, we propose a one-half modified Rankine vortex (OHMRV) model to describe the hurricane wind profile, particularly for those wind profiles with a wind speed maximum and an inflection point possibly associated with the degeneration of the inner wind maximum in the hurricane reintensification phase. OHMRV characterizes the hurricane wind profile and represents a model that complements the previously established single-modified Rankine vortex model and the double-modified Rankine vortex model. Moreover, the OHMRV-derived wind profiles are used to estimate hurricane intensity and structure parameters, such as the maximum wind speed and the radius of maximum wind. For validation of the method, the estimated ISPs are compared with measurements by the stepped-frequency microwave radiometer on board the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration aircraft. These parameters contribute to a description of hurricane inner-core intensity and structure associated with eyewall replacement cycles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".