Assessment of gravity wave momentum flux measurement capabilities by meteor radars having different transmitter power and antenna configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement capabilities of five meteor radars are assessed and compared to determine how well radars having different transmitted power and antenna configurations perform in defining mean winds, tidal amplitudes, and gravity wave (GW) momentum fluxes. The five radars include two new‐generation meteor radars on Tierra del Fuego, Argentina (53.8°S) and on King George Island in the Antarctic (62.1°S) and conventional meteor radars at Socorro, New Mexico (34.1°N, 106.9°W), Bear Lake Observatory, Utah (∼41.9°N, 111.4°W), and Yellowknife, Canada (62.5°N, 114.3°W). Our assessment employs observed meteor distributions for June of 2009, 2010, or 2011 for each radar and a set of seven test motion fields including various superpositions of mean winds, constant diurnal tides, constant and variable semidiurnal tides, and superposed GWs having various amplitudes, scales, periods, directions of propagation, momentum fluxes, and intermittencies. Radars having higher power and/or antenna patterns yielding higher meteor counts at small zenith angles perform well in defining monthly and daily mean winds, tidal amplitudes, and GW momentum fluxes, though with expected larger uncertainties in the daily estimates. Conventional radars having lower power and a single transmitting antenna are able to describe monthly mean winds and tidal amplitudes reasonably well, especially at altitudes having the highest meteor counts. They also provide reasonable estimates of GW momentum fluxes at the altitudes having the highest meteor counts; however, these estimates are subject to uncertainties of ∼20 to 50% and uncertainties rapidly become excessive at higher and lower altitudes. Estimates of all quantities degrade somewhat for more complex motion fields.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".