MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086913703 · doi:10.1029/2009jc005310

Remote sensing of ocean waves by along‐track interferometric synthetic aperture radar

2009· article· en· W2086913703 on OpenAlexafffund
Biao Zhang, William Perrie, Yijun He

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsInterferometric synthetic aperture radarBuoyRemote sensingSea stateGeologySynthetic aperture radarScatterometerWind waveRadarGeodesyInterferometryPhysicsWind speedOpticsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new wave retrieval method for the Along‐Track Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (AT‐InSAR) phase image is presented. The new algorithm, named parametric retrieval algorithm (PRA), uses the full nonlinear mapping relations. It differs from previous retrieval algorithms in that it does not require a priori information about the sea state or the wind vector from scatterometer data. Instead, it combines the observed AT‐InSAR phase spectrum and assumed wind vector to estimate the wind sea spectrum. The method has been validated using several C‐band and X‐band HH‐polarized AT‐InSAR observations collocated with spectral buoy measurements. In this paper, X‐band and C‐band HH‐polarized AT‐InSAR phase images of ocean waves are first used to study AT‐InSAR wave imaging fidelity. The resulting phase spectra are quantitatively compared with forward‐mapped in situ directional wave spectra collocated with the AT‐InSAR observations. Subsequently, we combine the parametric retrieval algorithm (PRA) with X‐band and C‐band HH‐polarized AT‐InSAR phase images to retrieve ocean wave spectra. The results show that the ocean wavelengths, wave directions, and significant wave heights estimated from the retrieved ocean wave spectra are in agreement with the buoy measurements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207