An ocean modelling and assimilation guide to using GOCE geoid products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We review the procedures and challenges that must be considered when using geoid data derived from the Gravity and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) mission in order to constrain the circulation and water mass representation in an ocean general circulation model. It covers the combination of the geoid information with time-mean sea level information derived from satellite altimeter data, to construct a mean dynamic topography (MDT), and considers how this complements the time-varying sea level anomaly, also available from the satellite altimeter. We particularly consider the compatibility of these different fields in their spatial scale content, their temporal representation, and in their error covariances. These considerations are very important when the resulting data are to be used to estimate ocean circulation and its corresponding errors. We describe the further steps needed for assimilating the resulting dynamic topography information into an ocean circulation model using three different operational forecasting and data assimilation systems. We look at methods used for assimilating altimeter anomaly data in the absence of a suitable geoid, and then discuss different approaches which have been tried for assimilating the additional geoid information. We review the problems that have been encountered and the lessons learned in order the help future users. Finally we present some results from the use of GRACE geoid information in the operational oceanography community and discuss the future potential gains that may be obtained from a new GOCE geoid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.048 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".