MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142741856 · doi:10.1109/36.964983

Errors in bathymetric retrievals using linear dispersion in 3-D FFT analysis of marine radar ocean wave imagery

2001· article· en· W2142741856 on OpenAlexfundno aff
D.B. Trizna

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsBathymetrySignificant wave heightWind waveWave heightGeologySurface waveWave shoalingAiry wave theoryWavelengthRadarDispersion (optics)Shoaling and schoolingGeodesyRadar imagingRemote sensingWave propagationOpticsBreaking waveStokes wavePhysicsComputer scienceLongitudinal waveMechanical waveOceanographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenomenon of ocean wave-shoaling, and the associated reduction of ocean wave phase speed with decreased water depth, provides useful information for inferring water depth D (bathymetry) in coastal environments. One strategy for relating D to phase speed C and wave-vector K of long wavelength ocean waves involves using the one-dimensional (1-D) linear (gravity wave) dispersion relationship C/sup 2/=g*tanh(KD)/K. In principle, this approach has limitations because the approach is based on a WKB approximation, so it cannot be applied when D varies appreciably over the wavelength of a shoaling wave. Also, the approach is restricted to waves that have small wave height. The author uses a set of marine radar image sequences and applies this linear approximation, using a 3-D FFT analysis of 88 sets of image sequences spaced half an hour apart. The author inverts the dispersion relation to solve for D. Depths between 3.6 and 5.8 m were tested, for root mean square (RMS) wave heights offshore between 8 and 3 m. The author shows that for low to moderate wave heights, the approach does generally retrieve the correct depth in water depths of 5 m and greater for moderate wave RMS heights. However, an increase in the RMS wave height from 1 m to 3.5 m produced a much poorer depth estimate, proving the need for an application of a nonlinear wave model to the problem. The errors also increase with shallower depths as expected, as the error dependence on depth and wave height is determined.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207