MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056237624 · doi:10.1175/2008jtecho615.1

Versatile Harmonic Tidal Analysis: Improvements and Applications

2008· article· en· W2056237624 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Foreman, J. Y. Cherniawsky, V. A. Ballantyne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic ServiceFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwareComputer scienceAltimeterAlgorithmSeries (stratigraphy)SatelliteTime seriesData miningRemote sensingGeodesyGeologyProgramming languageMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New computer software that permits more versatility in the harmonic analysis of tidal time series is described and tested. Specific improvements to traditional methods include the analysis of randomly sampled and/or multiyear data; more accurate nodal correction, inference, and astronomical argument adjustments through direct incorporation in the least squares matrix; multiconstituent inferences from a single reference constituent; correlation matrices and error estimates that facilitate decisions on the selection of constituents for the analysis; and a single program that analyzes one- or two-dimensional time series. This new methodology is evaluated through comparisons with results from old techniques and then applied to two problems that could not have been accurately solved with older software. They are (i) the analysis of ocean station temperature time series spanning 25 yr, and (ii) the analysis of satellite altimetry from a ground track whose proximity to land has led to significant data dropout. This new software is free as part of the Institute of Ocean Sciences (IOS) Tidal Package and can be downloaded, along with sample input data and an explanatory readme file.

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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations128
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207