MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111951664 · doi:10.1029/1999gl011212

Atmospheric vortex streets on a RADARSAT SAR image

2000· article· en· W2111951664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaofeng Li, P. Clemente‐Colón, William G. Pichel, P.W. Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortexSynthetic aperture radarRadiosondeSatelliteGeologyMeteorologyAtmosphere (unit)Remote sensingGeodesyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the sea surface imprint of two atmospheric vortex streets (AVS's) observed on a RADARSAT, a Canadian earth observation satellite, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image of the Aleutian Islands in the western Gulf of Alaska acquired on May 5, 1999. The RADARSAT SAR instrument is operated in C‐band with HH polarization. These AVS's are interpreted as the atmosphere analog of classic Von Kármán vortex streets. The SAR image, along with radiosonde data and surface weather charts, reveal that the AVS lengths are 196 km and 111 km for AVS‐1 and AVS‐2, respectively. There are five and two pairs of vortices within each AVS. The vortex shedding period is estimated to be between 35 and 48 minutes. The vortex shedding started approximately 4.6 and 2.6 hours prior to the SAR imaging time for AVS‐1 and AVS‐2, respectively. There are seven and three pairs of vortices within the respective AVS's. The vortex tangential velocity is estimated to be between 1.7 and 2.3 m/s and the energy dissipated during the vortex lifetime is estimated to be between 24.9 and 23.6 J/m³.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations58
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207