MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065133146 · doi:10.3390/rs6042898

Reconstructed Wind Fields from Multi-Satellite Observations

2014· article· en· W2065133146 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ruohan Tang, Deyou Liu, Guoqi Han, Zhimin Ma, Brad de Young

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSpecialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of ChinaFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesCanadian Space AgencyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBuoyWind speedRemote sensingStandard deviationSatelliteMeteorologyGeodesyGeologyEnvironmental scienceSynthetic aperture radarGeographyPhysicsMathematicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present and validate a method of reconstructing high-resolution sea surface wind fields from multi-sensor satellite data over the Grand Banks of Newfoundland off Atlantic Canada. Six-hourly ocean wind fields from blended products (including multi-satellite measurements) with 0.25° spatial resolution and 226 RADARSAT-2 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) wind fields with 1-km spatial resolution have been used to reconstruct new six-hourly wind fields with a resolution of 10 km for the period from August 2008 to December 2010, except July 2009 to November 2009. The reconstruction process is based on the heapsort bucket method with topdown search and the modified Gauss–Markov theorem. The result shows that the mean difference between the reconstructed wind speed and buoy-estimated wind speed is smaller than 0.6 m/s, and the standard deviation is smaller than 2.5 m/s. The mean difference in wind direction between reconstructed and buoy estimates is 3.7°; the standard deviation is 40.2°. There is fair agreement between the reconstructed wind vectors and buoy-estimated ones.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207