MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044121176 · doi:10.1080/01490410903297832

Numerical Simulation and Validation of Deepwater Spectral Wind-Waves

2010· article· en· W2044121176 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. K. Panigrahi, J. Swain

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Geodesy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsWind wave modelSwellBuoyWave modelSignificant wave heightWind waveMeteorologyWind speedWave heightElectromagnetic spectrumSpectral spaceSurface waveGeologyNumerical weather predictionInfragravity waveWave propagationPhysicsMathematicsMechanical waveOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical simulation study is carried out over Indian Ocean using spectral wind-wave model “WAM.” The surface wind analysis data utilized in this study are generated by assimilation of satellite data in numerical weather prediction models. These winds are used for forcing the ocean WAve Model (WAM) and various spectral and significant wave parameters are simulated. The model simulated outputs viz. significant wave height, peak, and mean wave periods; mean wave and wind-wave directions; the swell wave height, frequency, and direction; frictional wind velocity, wave-induced stress, frequency spectrum, and the two-dimensional directional wave spectrum are presented. A detail analysis is performed to these parameters for assessing spatio-temporal variability for rough weather period (July 1–August 24, 1999). Further, the input wind and simulated waves are validated against ocean buoy observations. The time series spectral evolution of wind-wave in central Bay of Bengal is discussed. The comparison results of significant and spectral wave parameters with measured data co-locating in time and space are presented. The result reveals that the performance of third generation wave model is promising over Indian Ocean despite several limitations. Further, the coincidence and departure of simulated and observed waves are critically examined.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine GeodesySame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207